DOCSLIB.ORG

Rogue-Recreation Section Watershed Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rogue-Recreation Section Watershed Analysis Note to the Reader: This web version may appear different from the office copy of this document, although the content is the same. This is a consequence of converting the document for publication to the web site. Rogue-Recreation Section Watershed Analysis Hellgate Bridge along the Rogue River REO Fifth Field Watershed #1710031001 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Medford District Grants Pass Resource Area January 1999 1/9/99 Version 1.0 Rogue - Recreation Section Watershed Analysis January 1999 Dear Reader: The purpose of this watershed analysis is to identify the various ecosystem components in the Rogue ­ Recreation Section fifth-field watershed and their interactions at a landscape scale. It looks at historical ecological components, current ecological components and trends. It makes recommendations for future management actions that could be implemented to reach recommended ecological conditions. The fifth watershed that is being analyzed in this document is designated as the Rogue - Recreation Section (Watershed #1710031001). It is sometimes referred to as the “Big Hog Watershed” reflecting its inclusion of Hog Creek. As you read this document, it is important to keep in mind that the watershed analysis process is an iterative and ongoing process. As new information becomes available it will be included and updating will occur. It is also important to keep in mind that this analysis document is not a decision document. The recommendations that are included are a point of departure for project specific planning and evaluation work. Project planning then includes the preparation of environmental assessments and formal decision records as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Project planning and land management actions would also be designed to meet the objectives and directives of our Medford District Resource Management Plan (RMP). This watershed analysis will thus be used as a tool in land management planning and project implementation within the Rogue - Recreation Watershed on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered lands. Although ecological information, discussions and recommendations are presented at the landscape scale irrespective of administrative ownership, please understand that the BLM will only be implementing management actions on the lands it administers. Preparation of the watershed analysis follows the format outlined in the draft federal watershed analysis guidelines in the document entitled Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale: Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis (Version 2.2, August 1995). If you have additional resource or social information that would contribute to our better understanding the ecological and social processes within the watershed, we would appreciate hearing about them. Robert C. Korfhage Field Manager Grants Pass Resource Area Rogue - Recreation WA - 1/9/99, Version 1.0 Rogue - Recreation Section Watershed Analysis Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 1 I. CHARACTERIZATION .................................................... 3 A. PURPOSE ........................................................... 3 B. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 3 C. CLIMATE ........................................................... 3 D. OWNERSHIP ........................................................ 3 E. REGULATORYCONSIDERATIONS ..................................... 5 F. EROSION PROCESSES ................................................ 5 G. HYDROLOGY ....................................................... 6 H. WATER QUALITY .................................................... 7 I. STREAM CHANNEL .................................................. 7 J. VEGETATION ....................................................... 7 K. SPECIES AND HABITATS ............................................. 8 1. Terrestrial ..................................................... 8 a. Special Status Plants ....................................... 8 b. Wildlife ................................................. 8 2. Aquatic........................................................ 9 L. FIRE............................................................... 10 1. Background ................................................... 10 2. Fire Disturbance................................................ 10 3. Fire Risk...................................................... 11 M. HUMAN USES ...................................................... 11 II. KEY ISSUES ............................................................. 13 A. INTRODUCTION .................................................... 13 B. ROGUE WILD AND SCENIC RIVER CORRIDOR ......................... 14 C. FUELS AND FIRE ................................................... 14 D. MINING AND MINING CLAIM OCCUPANCY ........................... 14 E. ROAD DISTRIBUTION ............................................... 14 F. WATER QUALITY LIMITED STREAMS ................................ 15 G. NOXIOUS WEEDS ................................................... 15 H. DISPERSED RECREATIONAL USE .................................... 15 I. ELK MANAGEMENT AREA .......................................... 16 J. LATE-SUCCESSIONAL RESERVE/CRITICAL HABITAT .................. 16 III. CURRENT CONDITION ................................................... 17 A. PURPOSE .......................................................... 17 B. CLIMATE .......................................................... 17 C. SOILS.............................................................. 19 1. Erosion Processes............................................... 19 2. Variable Road Densities ......................................... 20 Rogue - Recreation WA - 1/9/99, Version 1.0 i Rogue - Recreation Section Watershed Analysis Table of Contents D. HYDROLOGY ...................................................... 21 E. WATER QUALITY ................................................... 22 1. Water Temperature ............................................. 24 2. StreamFlow................................................... 24 a. Peak Flow............................................... 24 b. Low Flow ............................................... 26 3. Domestic Water ................................................ 26 a. General................................................. 26 F. STREAM CHANNEL ................................................. 27 G. VEGETATION ...................................................... 29 1. Description.................................................... 29 2. Site Productivity ................................................ 31 3. Landscape Patterns.............................................. 33 H. SPECIES AND HABITATS ............................................ 33 1. Introduction ................................................... 33 2. Terrestrial..................................................... 34 a. Botanical ............................................... 34 b. Wildlife ................................................ 36 3. Aquatic Habitats and Species...................................... 50 a. Special Status Species ..................................... 50 b. General ................................................ 51 c. Class I, II, III and IV Stream Conditions ....................... 52 d. Large Woody Material ..................................... 54 e. Macroinvertebrates........................................ 55 f. Distribution and Abundance ................................ 56 g. Fish Passage Barriers ...................................... 57 I. FIRE MANAGEMENT ................................................ 58 1. Fundamental Changes to the Natural Fire Regime ..................... 58 2. Quartz Creek OHV Area ......................................... 58 3. US Forest Service Lands ......................................... 59 4. Fuel Hazard, Wildfire Ignition Risk, Values at Risk .................... 59 J. HUMANUSE ....................................................... 61 1. Socioeconomic Overview ........................................ 61 2. Recreation .................................................... 62 a. Rogue Wild and Scenic River ............................... 62 b. Trails/Campgrounds ....................................... 62 c. Day Use Sites ........................................... 62 d. Dispersed Recreation ...................................... 63 3. Roads ........................................................ 63 4. Quarries ...................................................... 64 5. Minerals and Mining ............................................ 64 a. Minerals ................................................ 64 b. Surface Uses of a Mining Claim ............................. 66 c. Mineral Potential ......................................... 66 Rogue - Recreation WA - 1/9/99, Version 1.0 ii Rogue - Recreation Section Watershed Analysis Table of Contents d. Mineral Patent Applications ................................ 66 e. Physical Condition Resulting from Past Mining Activities ......... 66 6. Cultural Resources.............................................. 67 7. Lands/Realty .................................................. 67 IV. REFERENCE CONDITION ................................................ 69 A. PURPOSE .......................................................... 69 B. CLIMATE .......................................................... 69 C. EROSION PROCESSES ..............................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pije 14 Jeffrey Pine-Incense
    PIJE 14 JEFFREY PINE-INCENSE-CEDAR/HUCKLEBERRY OAK Pinus jeffreyi-Calocedrus decurrens/Quercus vaccinifolia PIJE-CADE27/QUVA (N=13; FS=13) Distribution. This Association occurs on the Applegate and Ashland Ranger Districts, Rogue River National Forest and the Galice and Illinois Valley Ranger Districts, Siskiyou National Forest. It may also occur on the Ashland and Grants Pass Resource Areas, Medford District, Bureau of Land Management. Distinguishing Characteristics. This is a relatively high elevation Jeffrey pine association and is the coolest of the Jeffrey pine associations. Huckleberry oak and incense-cedar are usually present. Soils. Parent material is serpentine, with one occurrence of peridotite. Surface gravel and rock content averages 26 and 36 percent cover, respectively, while exposed bedrock cover averages 5 percent. Based on two plots sampled, soils are deep (greater than 40 inches) and well drained. Surface texture is silty clay loam, with 8 to 25 percent gravel, 35 to 50 percent cobbles and stones, and 32 percent PIJE 15 clay. Subsurface texture is silty clay loam, with 5 percent gravel, 40 percent cobbles and stones, and 32 to 35 percent clay. The soil moisture regime is probably xeric and the soil temperature regime is probably frigid. Soils classify to the following subgroups: Dystric Xerochrept and Typic Xerochrept. Environment. Elevation averages 3990 feet. Aspect is variable, although generally not northerly. Slope averages 33 percent with a range of 5 to 68 percent. Slope position ranges from ridgetops down to the middle one-third of the slope. Vegetation Composition and Structure. Total species richness is low for the Series, averaging 27 species.
    [Show full text]
  • Likely to Have Habitat Within Iras That ALLOW Road
    Item 3a - Sensitive Species National Master List By Region and Species Group Not likely to have habitat within IRAs Not likely to have Federal Likely to have habitat that DO NOT ALLOW habitat within IRAs Candidate within IRAs that DO Likely to have habitat road (re)construction that ALLOW road Forest Service Species Under NOT ALLOW road within IRAs that ALLOW but could be (re)construction but Species Scientific Name Common Name Species Group Region ESA (re)construction? road (re)construction? affected? could be affected? Bufo boreas boreas Boreal Western Toad Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Plethodon vandykei idahoensis Coeur D'Alene Salamander Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Rana pipiens Northern Leopard Frog Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Ammodramus bairdii Baird's Sparrow Bird 1 No No Yes No No Anthus spragueii Sprague's Pipit Bird 1 No No Yes No No Centrocercus urophasianus Sage Grouse Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter Swan Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Falco peregrinus anatum American Peregrine Falcon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Gavia immer Common Loon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Histrionicus histrionicus Harlequin Duck Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Oreortyx pictus Mountain Quail Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Otus flammeolus Flammulated Owl Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides albolarvatus White-Headed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides arcticus Black-Backed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Speotyto cunicularia Burrowing
    [Show full text]
  • Arctostaphylos Hispidula, Gasquet Manzanita
    Conservation Assessment for Gasquet Manzanita (Arctostaphylos hispidula) Within the State of Oregon Photo by Clint Emerson March 2010 U.S.D.A. Forest Service Region 6 and U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management Interagency Special Status and Sensitive Species Program Author CLINT EMERSON is a botanist, USDA Forest Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Gold Beach and Powers Ranger District, Gold Beach, OR 97465 TABLE OF CONTENTS Disclaimer 3 Executive Summary 3 List of Tables and Figures 5 I. Introduction 6 A. Goal 6 B. Scope 6 C. Management Status 7 II. Classification and Description 8 A. Nomenclature and Taxonomy 8 B. Species Description 9 C. Regional Differences 9 D. Similar Species 10 III. Biology and Ecology 14 A. Life History and Reproductive Biology 14 B. Range, Distribution, and Abundance 16 C. Population Trends and Demography 19 D. Habitat 21 E. Ecological Considerations 25 IV. Conservation 26 A. Conservation Threats 26 B. Conservation Status 28 C. Known Management Approaches 32 D. Management Considerations 33 V. Research, Inventory, and Monitoring Opportunities 35 Definitions of Terms Used (Glossary) 39 Acknowledgements 41 References 42 Appendix A. Table of Known Sites in Oregon 45 2 Disclaimer This Conservation Assessment was prepared to compile existing published and unpublished information for the rare vascular plant Gasquet manzanita (Arctostaphylos hispidula) as well as include observational field data gathered during the 2008 field season. This Assessment does not represent a management decision by the U.S. Forest Service (Region 6) or Oregon/Washington BLM. Although the best scientific information available was used and subject experts were consulted in preparation of this document, it is expected that new information will arise.
    [Show full text]
  • Pinus Jeffreyi Grev. & Balf. Family: Pinaceae Jeffrey Pine
    Pinus jeffreyi Grev. & Balf. Family: Pinaceae Jeffrey Pine The genus Pinus is composed of about 100 species native to temperate and tropical regions of the world. Wood of pine can be separated microscopically into the white, red and yellow pine groups. The word pinus is the classical Latin name. The word jeffreyi is used in honor of the trees discoverer, John Jeffrey (1826-1853), Scotch botanical explorer who collected seeds and plants in Oregon and California (1850-1853) for introduction in Scotland. Jeffrey pine was first classified as a variety of ponderosa pine, and has identical wood properties of ponderosa pine. Other Common Names: Blackbark pine, blackwood pine, bull pine, Jeffrey pijn, Jeffrey pine, Jeffrey's pine, Jeffrey-tall, peninsula black pine, peninsula pine, pin de Jeffrey, pino de Jeffrey, pino di Jeffrey, pino negro, pinos, ponderosa pine, redbark pine, redbark sierra pine, sapwood pine, truckee pine, western black pine, western yellow pine. Distribution: Jeffrey pine is native to the mountains of southwestern Oregon south in California through the Sierra Nevada to western Nevada and to southern California. Also in northern Mexico. The Tree: Jeffrey pine trees reach heights of 200 feet, with diameters of 6 feet. A survivor of early timber harvests was measured at 175 feet tall and 7.5 feet in diameter. Jeffrey pines trees may live to 500 years of age. General Wood Characteristics: Jeffrey pine is identical to ponderosa pine, with respect to its mechanical and physical properties. Both are in the Yellow Pine Group. The following general information is for ponderosa pine. The heartwood is yellowish to light reddish brown or orange and the wide sapwood is nearly white to pale yellow.
    [Show full text]
  • ALFABETISCHE TERMENLIJST Pagina 2 a a Z
    ALFABETISCHE TERMENLIJST Pagina 2 A a z. alpha. A = afk. adenine: toegepast in schematische weergave vd. bouw van DNA en RNA. a. = afk. Lat. anno: in het jaar. a-, an- = voorvoegsel met de betekenis: niet, zonder. Å = ångstrom: verouderde lengteeenheid; 1 millimeter is gelijk aan 10 miljoen ångstrom; v. nm, afk. van nanometer. Aalwijn, Aalwee N. ZAfr. = Aloe spp. (Asphodelaceae), ook enkele aloë-achtige verwante soorten. Aaron's Beard N. = Opuntia leucotricha (Cactaceae). Aaron's Rod N. = Koningskaars: Verbascum thapsus (Scrophulariaceae). ABA z. abscisic acid. abaxial ADJ. = aan de vd. as verwijderde zijde, aan de onderzijde (ve. blad); syn. dorsal; ant. adaxial, ventral. abbreviate ADJ. = afgekort. ABC Islands N. = Aruba, Bonaire & Curaçao: de voormalig Ned. eilanden die, tov. de andere Kleine Antillen ver naar het Westen, voor de kust van Venezulela liggen; v. Leeward Islands, Windward Islands. aberrant ADJ. = afwijkend, niet normaal, ongewoon, iets verschilled vh. type; syn. abnormal. abiogenesis N. = veronderstelde ontwikkeling van levende organismen uit dood anorganisch materiaal. abiotic ADJ. = abiotisch: btr. factoren uit de niet-levende omgeving die het leven van planten en dieren beïnvloeden; bv. beschikbaar water, pH vd. bodem, kooldioxidegehalte vd. lucht en licht; v. biotic. abnormal ADJ. = ongewoon, abnormaal, afwijkend; v. aberrant. aboriginal ADJ. = oorspronkelijk, inheems; btr. plant die van nature in een gebied thuis hoort; syn. native, indigeneous; ant. exotic. aborted ADJ. = defect, onvruchtbaar, onvolledig ontwikkeld. abortion N. = het feit dat een orgaan of deel vd. plant zich niet ontwikkelt of in de volwassen plant niet meer aanwezig is. abortive ADJ. = al in een vroeg stadium onvolledig ontwikkeld. Abrojo Sp. N. = 1) Opuntia tunicata (Cactaceae) 2) ook O.
    [Show full text]
  • Conifers of the Sierra
    California Forests: Presentation to the California Naturalists September 18, 2015 Susie Kocher, Forestry Advisor, Central Sierra [email protected] Presentation Goals • Overview of forests in California, status and threats • Familiarity with Sierra conifer species and forest types • Basic understanding of – Sierra forest ecology Interaction / growth of different species – Forest fuels reduction projects – Insects and disease 33 million acres of Forest in California • 19 million acres (57%) federal agencies (Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management National Park Service) • < 1 million acres (3%) State and local agencies (CalFire, local open space, park /water districts, land trusts • 14 million acres (40%) private ─ 5 million acres (14%) Industrial timber companies ─ 9 million acres individuals where 90% own < 50 acres Sierra Nevada Conifers • Any of various mostly needle-leaved or scale- leaved, chiefly evergreen, cone-bearing gymnospermous trees or shrubs • Pines (pinus spp.) – Needles in bundles – Seeds carried on cones that fall to ground whole – Two families are yellow and white pines • Firs (abies spp.) – Needles individually attached to stems – Cones do not fall whole to the ground Foothill pine Pinus sabiniana • Needles in bundles of 3, pale gray-green, sparse and drooping, 8 to 13 inches long • Cones large and heavy, 5-14 inches long • California Indians used its seeds, cones, bark, and buds as food, and twigs, needles, cones, and resin in basket and drum construction and medicine Ponderosa pine Pinus Ponderosa • 2-3 needles per bundle - 3 to 5 inches long • Cone bracts long and “prickly” • Orange puzzle piece bark Jeffrey pine Pinus Jeffreyi • 2-3 needles per bundle - 3 to 5 inches long • Cone stouter with bracts turned in “gentle” • Resin scent described as vanilla or butterscotch.
    [Show full text]
  • Sensitive Species That Are Not Listed Or Proposed Under the ESA Sorted By: Major Group, Subgroup, NS Sci
    Forest Service Sensitive Species that are not listed or proposed under the ESA Sorted by: Major Group, Subgroup, NS Sci. Name; Legend: Page 94 REGION 10 REGION 1 REGION 2 REGION 3 REGION 4 REGION 5 REGION 6 REGION 8 REGION 9 ALTERNATE NATURESERVE PRIMARY MAJOR SUB- U.S. N U.S. 2005 NATURESERVE SCIENTIFIC NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME(S) COMMON NAME GROUP GROUP G RANK RANK ESA C 9 Anahita punctulata Southeastern Wandering Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G4 NNR 9 Apochthonius indianensis A Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G1G2 N1N2 9 Apochthonius paucispinosus Dry Fork Valley Cave Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 Pseudoscorpion 9 Erebomaster flavescens A Cave Obligate Harvestman Invertebrate Arachnid G3G4 N3N4 9 Hesperochernes mirabilis Cave Psuedoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G5 N5 8 Hypochilus coylei A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G3? NNR 8 Hypochilus sheari A Lampshade Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2G3 NNR 9 Kleptochthonius griseomanus An Indiana Cave Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 8 Kleptochthonius orpheus Orpheus Cave Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 9 Kleptochthonius packardi A Cave Obligate Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G2G3 N2N3 9 Nesticus carteri A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid GNR NNR 8 Nesticus cooperi Lost Nantahala Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 8 Nesticus crosbyi A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G1? NNR 8 Nesticus mimus A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2 NNR 8 Nesticus sheari A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2? NNR 8 Nesticus silvanus A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2? NNR
    [Show full text]
  • Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species of Oregon
    Portland State University PDXScholar Institute for Natural Resources Publications Institute for Natural Resources - Portland 8-2016 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species of Oregon James S. Kagan Portland State University Sue Vrilakas Portland State University, [email protected] John A. Christy Portland State University Eleanor P. Gaines Portland State University Lindsey Wise Portland State University See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/naturalresources_pub Part of the Biodiversity Commons, Biology Commons, and the Zoology Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Citation Details Oregon Biodiversity Information Center. 2016. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species of Oregon. Institute for Natural Resources, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon. 130 pp. This Book is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Institute for Natural Resources Publications by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Authors James S. Kagan, Sue Vrilakas, John A. Christy, Eleanor P. Gaines, Lindsey Wise, Cameron Pahl, and Kathy Howell This book is available at PDXScholar: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/naturalresources_pub/25 RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES OF OREGON OREGON BIODIVERSITY INFORMATION CENTER August 2016 Oregon Biodiversity Information Center Institute for Natural Resources Portland State University P.O. Box 751,
    [Show full text]
  • How to Look at Pines
    How to Look at Pines Species name: __________________________________________ Growth habit: multi-branched shrub single-stemmed tree Leaves: Can you fnd both scale leaves and needle leaves? Number of needles per bundle: 1 2 3 4 5 Needle length: __________ Foliage: drooping or not drooping Female Cones: Persistent on tree?: yes or no Cone symmetry: asymmetrical symmetrical Cone prickle: present absent Cone length: __________ Seeds: wing longer than seed or wing shorter than seed Other Notable Features: Key to California’s Commonly Cultivated Pines 1. Most bundles (fascicles) with 2 needles (occasionally with 3 needles) 2. Mature plant a shrub or multi branched small tree—Mugo Pine (P. mugo) 2’ Mature plant a large, single-stemmed tree 3. Bark on old trunk breaking into large plates, some orangish in color, seed wing shorter than seed, tree crown rounded, umbrella-like—Italian Stone Pine (P. pinea) 3’ Bark on old trunk breaking into small or elongated plate, all brown or gray in color, seed wing longer than seed, tree shape varying 4. Cones persisting for years (old branches with many cones) 5. Needles mostly less than 3 inches long, cones recurved on stems—Aleppo Pine (P. halepensis) 5’ Needles mostly 3 inches long or more, cones erect to forward pointing on stems— Mondell Pine (P. eldarica) 4’ Cones falling at maturity (old cones not found on branches) 6. Twigs ofen glaucous, buds chestnut brown, bark in upper part of tree orangish- red, faky—Japanese Red Pine (P. densifora) 6’ Twigs not glaucous, buds conspicuously white, bark dark brown with deep longitudinal fssures—Japanese Black Pine (P.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change and the Klamath-Siskiyou Region Annotated Bibliography
    Climate Change and the Klamath-Siskiyou Region Annotated Bibliography Table of Contents Bibliography (Alphabetical) 2 Bibliography (Organized by Topic) 6 Study Designs of Papers 10 Ecological Resilience 22 Connectivity 28 Klamath Siskiyou Region – General Ecological Information 31 Herbaceous Plants 50 Birds 60 Streams, Riparian Areas, & Salmon 62 Wildfire 72 Climate Refuge 97 Predicted Climate Change Impacts 107 Characteristics of Climate Vulnerability 116 Benefits of Healthy Ecosystems 117 Management – General Recommendations 119 Management – Fuels and Fire 141 Annotations on Individual Papers 148 1 Bibliography (Alphabetical) Anacker, Brian L. and Susan P. Harrison. 2012. Climate and the evolution of serpentine endism in California. Evol. Ecol. 26: 1011-1023. Anacker, B.L., Gogol-Prokurat, M., Leidholm, K. and S. Schoenig. 2013. Climate change vulnerability assessment of rare plants in California. Madrono 60(3): 193-210. Asarian, J. Eli and Jeffrey D. Walker. 2016. Long-term trends in streamflow and precipitation in northwest California and southwest Oregon, 1953-2012. Journal of the American Waters Association, 52 (1): 241-261. Ayram et al. 2016. Habitat connectivity in biodiversity conservation: A review of recent studies and applications. Progress in Physical Geography 40(1): 7-37. Batabyal, Amitrajeet A. 1998. On some aspects of ecological resilience and the conservation of species. Journal of Environmental Management 52: 373-378. Bottom et al. 2009. Reconnecting social and ecological resilience in salmon ecosystems. Ecology and Society 14(1): 5. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art5/ Breining, Greg. 2016. What’s a National Park to do about climate change? Ensia Magazine. http://ensia.com/features/whats-a-national-park-to-do-about-climate-change/ Cahall, Rebecca E.
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Cited
    Literature Cited Robert W. Kiger, Editor This is a consolidated list of all works cited in volume 8, whether as selected references, in text, or in nomenclatural contexts. In citations of articles, both here and in the taxonomic treat- ments, and also in nomenclatural citations, the titles of serials are rendered in the forms recom- mended in G. D. R. Bridson and E. R. Smith (1991). When those forms are abbreviated, as most are, cross references to the corresponding full serial titles are interpolated here alphabetically by abbreviated form. In nomenclatural citations (only), book titles are rendered in the abbreviated forms recommended in F. A. Stafleu and R. S. Cowan (1976–1988) and F. A. Stafleu et al. (1992– 2009). Here, those abbreviated forms are indicated parenthetically following the full citations of the corresponding works, and cross references to the full citations are interpolated in the list alpha- betically by abbreviated form. Two or more works published in the same year by the same author or group of coauthors will be distinguished uniquely and consistently throughout all volumes of Flora of North America by lower-case letters (b, c, d, ...) suffixed to the date for the second and subsequent works in the set. The suffixes are assigned in order of editorial encounter and do not reflect chronological sequence of publication. The first work by any particular author or group from any given year carries the implicit date suffix “a”; thus, the sequence of explicit suffixes begins with “b”. There may be citations in this list that have dates suffixed “b” but that are not preceded by citations of “[a]” works for the same year, or that have dates suffixed “c,” “d,” or “e” but that are not preceded by citations of “[a],” “b,” “c,” and/or “d” works for that year.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Cavitation Resistance in Conifers Maximilian Larter
    The evolution of cavitation resistance in conifers Maximilian Larter To cite this version: Maximilian Larter. The evolution of cavitation resistance in conifers. Bioclimatology. Univer- sit´ede Bordeaux, 2016. English. <NNT : 2016BORD0103>. <tel-01375936> HAL Id: tel-01375936 https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01375936 Submitted on 3 Oct 2016 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destin´eeau d´ep^otet `ala diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publi´esou non, lished or not. The documents may come from ´emanant des ´etablissements d'enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche fran¸caisou ´etrangers,des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou priv´es. THESE Pour obtenir le grade de DOCTEUR DE L’UNIVERSITE DE BORDEAUX Spécialité : Ecologie évolutive, fonctionnelle et des communautés Ecole doctorale: Sciences et Environnements Evolution de la résistance à la cavitation chez les conifères The evolution of cavitation resistance in conifers Maximilian LARTER Directeur : Sylvain DELZON (DR INRA) Co-Directeur : Jean-Christophe DOMEC (Professeur, BSA) Soutenue le 22/07/2016 Devant le jury composé de : Rapporteurs : Mme Amy ZANNE, Prof., George Washington University Mr Jordi MARTINEZ VILALTA, Prof., Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona Examinateurs : Mme Lisa WINGATE, CR INRA, UMR ISPA, Bordeaux Mr Jérôme CHAVE, DR CNRS, UMR EDB, Toulouse i ii Abstract Title: The evolution of cavitation resistance in conifers Abstract Forests worldwide are at increased risk of widespread mortality due to intense drought under current and future climate change.
    [Show full text]