DOCSLIB.ORG

Comparing Ecoregional Classifications for Natural Areas Management in the Klamath Region, USA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comparing Ecoregional Classifications for Natural Areas Management in the Klamath Region, USA Comparing Ecoregional Classifications for Natural Areas Management in the Klamath Region, USA Sarr, D. A., Duff, A., Dinger, E. C., Shafer, S. L., Wing, M., Seavy, N. E., & Alexander, J. D. (2015). Comparing Ecoregional Classifications for Natural Areas Management in the Klamath Region, USA. Natural Areas Journal, 35(3), 360-377. doi:10.3375/043.035.0301 10.3375/043.035.0301 Natural Areas Association Version of Record http://cdss.library.oregonstate.edu/sa-termsofuse R E S E A R C H A R T I C L E ABSTRACT: We compared three existing ecoregional classification schemes (Bailey, Omernik, and World Wildlife Fund) with two derived schemes (Omernik Revised and Climate Zones) to explore their effectiveness in explaining species distributions and to better understand natural resource geography in the Klamath Region, USA. We analyzed presence/absence data derived from digital distribution maps for trees, amphibians, large mammals, small mammals, migrant birds, and resident birds using three statistical analyses of classification accuracy (Analysis of Similarity, Canonical Analysis of Principal • Coordinates, and Classification Strength). The classifications were roughly comparable in classification accuracy, with Omernik Revised showing the best overall performance. Trees showed the strongest fidel- Comparing ity to the classifications, and large mammals showed the weakest fidelity. We discuss the implications for regional biogeography and describe how intermediate resolution ecoregional classifications may be Ecoregional appropriate for use as natural areas management domains. Index terms: Bailey ecoregions, Klamath Region, management domains, Omernik ecoregions, World Classifications Wildlife Fund ecoregions for Natural Areas INTRODUCTION Management in the • Increasingly, natural resource management involves multipartner collaboration across Klamath Region, landscapes and regions, often with complex arrays of administrative and ecological USA 2Wildlife Survey Data Management boundaries. Typically, the conceptual and Wildlife Science Division spatial domains for natural areas manage- Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife ment (hereafter management domains) are not clearly defined. Ideally, management 1,7,8 600 Capital Way North Daniel A. Sarr Olympia, WA 98501-1091 domains would be grounded in biogeog- raphy, and potentially relevant to a wide 1Klamath Network–National Park array of ecological patterns, processes, and Service 3US Geological Survey suites of species. When exploring alternate 1250 Siskiyou Boulevard 3200 SW Jefferson Way management domains for a region, natural Ashland, OR 97520 Corvallis, OR 97331 areas managers may wish to know answers to a number of practical questions, such as: (1) Which classifications best describe 2 ecologically significant boundaries? (2) Andrew Duff 4 Engineering, Resources and How do such boundaries correspond to 1 Eric C. Dinger Management Department biotic distributions of different species? Sarah L. Shafer3 Peavy Hall 215 And (3) how do patterns of biogeography Oregon State University Michael Wing4 and biodiversity affect conservation and Corvallis, OR 97331 management? Nathaniel E. Seavy5 John D. Alexander6 Large scale classification of biotic commu- 5Point Blue Conservation Science nities has long been a goal of naturalists and 3820 Cypress Drive #11 biogeographers, whose works have yielded Petaluma, CA 94954 a diverse array of maps and classifications • of the world’s flora and fauna (Wallace 1869; Holdridge 1947; reviewed in Welsh 7 Corresponding author: [email protected]; 6 1994). At the same time, climatologists (928) 556-7250; Fax: (928) 556-7092 Klamath Bird Observatory have been converging upon regional clas- 8 Current address: USGS Grand Canyon PO Box 758 sifications of climate, with a number of Monitoring and Research Center, 2255 N. Ashland, OR 97520 Gemini Dr., Flagstaff, AZ 86001 studies focused in the western United States (Baker 1944; Mitchell 1976; Mock 1996). Formal ecoregional classifications • have been developed in North America by US federal agencies (e.g., Bailey 1983, Natural Areas Journal 35:360–377 1998; Omernik 1987, 2011), with subse- quent refinement by states (Welsh 1994) 360 Natural Areas Journal Volume 35 (3), 2015 and nongovernmental entities such as the into integrated and holistic approaches tance of each factor will vary depending World Wildlife Fund (WWF; Ricketts et that cover many species simultaneously upon the life history of the organisms al. 1999). and span large spatial scales (Johnson et involved. Moreover, any classification al. 1999; Vander Schaaf et al. 2004). For used should ideally offer sufficient gen- The causes of variation among ecoregions managers, this broader focus requires an erality to be easily recognized and used include both biological and physical fac- understanding of the biodiversity and bio- by natural area managers. Thus, lessons tors, of which climate is usually considered geography of major species assemblages learned from evaluating ecoregional clas- to be an overarching control (Bailey 1998). in the areas they manage, as well as the sification schemes in this diverse region For plants, other abiotic factors, such as ability to make sound hypotheses of eco- will provide examples of challenges that geology, have long been known to be fun- managers in many parts of the world may logical responses to management actions. expect to confront. damental to the distributions of species and In complex landscapes with many land- communities (Merriam and Steineger 1890; owners, ecoregional classifications may Our initial survey of ecoregion classifi- Whittaker 1960; Walter 1973; Woodward be essential for developing meaningful cations revealed several alternatives to 1987; Ohmann and Spies 1998). For other ecological units for collaborative manage- compare for potential use in our region. taxa, these biophysical controls have typi- ment (Host et al. 1996) and bioassessment Of these, we chose the Bailey (Bailey cally been less clearly understood, but a (Hawkins et al. 2000). 1983, 1998), Omernik (Omernik 1987, number of studies suggest these controls 2011), and WWF (Ricketts et al. 1999) may be important (Root 1988; Hansen and Managers and applied conservation classifications. We also noted that although Rotella 2002; Shine et al. 2002; Duff and scientists often must develop and apply the existing ecoregional classifications Morrell 2007). Upon the coarse biophysi- standardized inventory and monitoring appeared to capture a number of broad cal template, finer habitat divisions arise techniques across large and heterogeneous landscape boundaries across the Klamath Region as a whole, they did not adequately from vegetation structure, successional landscapes. For instance, the Klamath Net- differentiate climate zones within the most variation, interspecific competition, and a work Inventory and Monitoring Program complex part of our region, the Klamath host of other biologically mediated effects of the National Park Service is currently Mountains subregion, where biodiversity (Grinnell 1917). Animals further subdivide developing a long term monitoring program is particularly high and climatic gradients the landscape into breeding territories, for six park units (three national parks, are especially pronounced. Therefore, in foraging and staging areas, and other two national monuments, and one national addition to evaluating the existing ecore- functional spaces (Palik and Engstrom recreation area) in the Klamath Region of gional classifications, we decided to ana- 1999). Consequently, ecoregional varia- northern California and southern Oregon lyze available climate data to see if more tion is best viewed as a multiscale concept that vary tremendously in climate, geol- refined climate zones could be identified containing a complex array of controls on ogy, plant and animal species, and a host for our study area. Our objective was to spatial patterns. of ecological processes (Sarr et al. 2007). compare the three existing ecoregional An integrated and rigorous monitoring pro- Recent research (Wright et al. 1998; classifications and two derived classifica- gram requires a basic understanding of how McDonald et al. 2005; Thompson et al. tion schemes for the Klamath Region using important functional relationships change 2005) has demonstrated that ecoregional a suite of biological and physical datasets across landscapes and where important boundaries may not correspond closely to compare their effectiveness in represent- boundaries or semi-homogeneous regions with compositional changes in individual ing ecologically significant boundaries for occur. Such an understanding also would be life forms, which may change at dif- our region. More specifically, we sought helpful for fostering collaboration among ferent rates across landscape gradients. to better understand the biophysical and reserves and with adjacent landowners to Therefore, it may be useful to explore address issues of mutual interest. biogeographic patterns within our region how differing ecological classifications by investigating the following four research fit varied species geography. For instance, To evaluate the utility of ecoregional questions: highly vagile organisms (birds) may show classification for describing ecological more dispersed distributions and partition patterns, processes, and suites of species, 1. Which ecoregional classifications best the landscape more coarsely than sessile we investigated the performance of several describe ecologically significant boundar-
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Copyrighted Material
    Index Abulfeda crater chain (Moon), 97 Aphrodite Terra (Venus), 142, 143, 144, 145, 146 Acheron Fossae (Mars), 165 Apohele asteroids, 353–354 Achilles asteroids, 351 Apollinaris Patera (Mars), 168 achondrite meteorites, 360 Apollo asteroids, 346, 353, 354, 361, 371 Acidalia Planitia (Mars), 164 Apollo program, 86, 96, 97, 101, 102, 108–109, 110, 361 Adams, John Couch, 298 Apollo 8, 96 Adonis, 371 Apollo 11, 94, 110 Adrastea, 238, 241 Apollo 12, 96, 110 Aegaeon, 263 Apollo 14, 93, 110 Africa, 63, 73, 143 Apollo 15, 100, 103, 104, 110 Akatsuki spacecraft (see Venus Climate Orbiter) Apollo 16, 59, 96, 102, 103, 110 Akna Montes (Venus), 142 Apollo 17, 95, 99, 100, 102, 103, 110 Alabama, 62 Apollodorus crater (Mercury), 127 Alba Patera (Mars), 167 Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP), 110 Aldrin, Edwin (Buzz), 94 Apophis, 354, 355 Alexandria, 69 Appalachian mountains (Earth), 74, 270 Alfvén, Hannes, 35 Aqua, 56 Alfvén waves, 35–36, 43, 49 Arabia Terra (Mars), 177, 191, 200 Algeria, 358 arachnoids (see Venus) ALH 84001, 201, 204–205 Archimedes crater (Moon), 93, 106 Allan Hills, 109, 201 Arctic, 62, 67, 84, 186, 229 Allende meteorite, 359, 360 Arden Corona (Miranda), 291 Allen Telescope Array, 409 Arecibo Observatory, 114, 144, 341, 379, 380, 408, 409 Alpha Regio (Venus), 144, 148, 149 Ares Vallis (Mars), 179, 180, 199 Alphonsus crater (Moon), 99, 102 Argentina, 408 Alps (Moon), 93 Argyre Basin (Mars), 161, 162, 163, 166, 186 Amalthea, 236–237, 238, 239, 241 Ariadaeus Rille (Moon), 100, 102 Amazonis Planitia (Mars), 161 COPYRIGHTED
    [Show full text]
  • The Eastern Africa Coastal Forests Ecoregion
    The Eastern Africa Coastal Forests Ecoregion Strategic Framework for Conservation 2005 – 2025 Strategic Framework for Conservation (2005–2025) The Eastern Afrca Coastal Forests Ecoregon Strategc Framework for Conservaton 2005–2025 The Eastern Africa Coastal Forests Ecoregion Publshed August 2006 Editor: Kimunya Mugo Design and layout: Anthony Mwangi Cover design: Kimunya Mugo Front cover main photo: WWF-EARPO / John SALEHE Front cover other photos: WWF-UK / Brent STIRTON / Getty Images Back cover photo: WWF-EARPO / John SALEHE Photos: John Salehe, David Maingi and Neil Burgess or as credited. © Graphics (2006) WWF-EARPO. All rights reserved. The material and geographic designations in this report do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WWF concerning the legal status of any country, territory or area or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers and boundaries. WWF Eastern Africa Regional Programme Office ACS Plaza, Lenana Road P.O. Box 62440-00200 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: +254 20 3877355, 3872630/1 Fax: +254 20 3877389 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.panda.org/earpo Strategic Framework for Conservation (2005–2025) Contents Acknowledgements......................................................................................................... iv Foreword........................................................................................................................... v Lst of abbrevatons and acronyms.............................................................................. v A new approach to
    [Show full text]
  • Grasslands 4/16/03 3:46 PM
    Ecoregion: Grasslands 4/16/03 3:46 PM Grasslands INTRODUCTION About 25% of Earth’s land surface is covered by temperate grassland. These large expanses of flat or hilly country cover much of North America, as well as large areas of Europe, Asia, and South America. Most grasslands are found in the interiors of continents, where there is too little rainfall for a forest but too much rain for a desert. Art Explosion Art Explosion Rolling hills covered with grasses and very few trees A few scattered trees are found on savannas, are typical of North American grassland prairies. tropical grasslands of Africa. Temperate grasslands have subtle differences and different names throughout the world. Prairies and plains of North America are grasslands with tall grasses, while the steppes of Russia are grasslands with short grasses. Veldts are found in South Africa, the puszta in Hungary, and the pampas in Argentina and Uruguay. Savannas are tropical grasslands that support scattered trees and shrubs. They often form a transitional biome file:///Ecoregion/grass/content.html Page 1 of 6 Ecoregion: Grasslands 4/16/03 3:46 PM between deserts and rain forests. Some temperate grasslands are also called savannas. The word savanna comes from the Spanish word zavanna, meaning “treeless plain.” Savannas cover almost half of Africa (mostly central Africa) and large areas of Australia and South America. ABIOTIC DATA The grassland climate is rather dry, averaging about 20 to 100 centimeters (8–40 inches) of precipitation a year. Summers are very hot and may reach 45°C (113°F). Winter temperatures often fall below freezing, which is 0°C (32°F).
    [Show full text]
  • Fact Sheet- Central California Coast Ecoregion
    California State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) 2015 Central California Coast Region Annual and Perennial Grassland Habitat About Our Region and the Grassland Habitat Annual grassland habitats are open grasslands composed primarily of annual plant species such as introduced annual grasses and forbs. Annual grasslands also occur as understory plants in Valley Oak Woodland and other habitats. Perennial grassland habitats occur as coastal prairie and interspersed within annual grasslands. Vernal pools also are an important habitat component of many grassland systems. The structure of grasslands depends upon prevailing weather patterns and grazing. A number of wildlife species spend their entire life within grasslands while others use grasslands for foraging and breeding. What are the sensitive species found in the grassland habitat? The following 32 grassland dependent species from this region are found to be sensitive: Amphibian [3] CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER WESTERN SPADEFOOT RED-LEGGED FROG Reptile [1] BLUNT-NOSED LEOPARD LIZARD Bird [15] BURROWING OWL NORTHERN HARRIER CALIFORNIA CONDOR OREGON VESPER SPARROW GIANT KANGAROO RAT PURPLE MARTIN GRASSHOPPER SPARROW SAND-HILL CRANE GOLDEN EAGLE SHORT-EARED OWL LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE SWAINSON’S HAWK LONG-BILLED CURLEW TRICOLORED BLACKBIRD MOUNTAIN PLOVER Mammal [13] BIG FREE-TAILED BAT PALLID SAN DIEGO POCKET MOUSE CALIFORNIA LEAF-NOSED BAT POCKETED FREE-TAILED BATRINGTAIL HOARY BAT SOUTHERN GRASSHOPPER MOUSE JACUMBA POCKET MOUSE SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX LONG-EARED MYOTIS TOWNSEND BIG- EARED BAT MAINLAND
    [Show full text]
  • Characterization of Ecoregions of Idaho
    1 0 . C o l u m b i a P l a t e a u 1 3 . C e n t r a l B a s i n a n d R a n g e Ecoregion 10 is an arid grassland and sagebrush steppe that is surrounded by moister, predominantly forested, mountainous ecoregions. It is Ecoregion 13 is internally-drained and composed of north-trending, fault-block ranges and intervening, drier basins. It is vast and includes parts underlain by thick basalt. In the east, where precipitation is greater, deep loess soils have been extensively cultivated for wheat. of Nevada, Utah, California, and Idaho. In Idaho, sagebrush grassland, saltbush–greasewood, mountain brush, and woodland occur; forests are absent unlike in the cooler, wetter, more rugged Ecoregion 19. Grazing is widespread. Cropland is less common than in Ecoregions 12 and 80. Ecoregions of Idaho The unforested hills and plateaus of the Dissected Loess Uplands ecoregion are cut by the canyons of Ecoregion 10l and are disjunct. 10f Pure grasslands dominate lower elevations. Mountain brush grows on higher, moister sites. Grazing and farming have eliminated The arid Shadscale-Dominated Saline Basins ecoregion is nearly flat, internally-drained, and has light-colored alkaline soils that are Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and America into 15 ecological regions. Level II divides the continent into 52 regions Literature Cited: much of the original plant cover. Nevertheless, Ecoregion 10f is not as suited to farming as Ecoregions 10h and 10j because it has thinner soils.
    [Show full text]
  • Taiga Plains
    ECOLOGICAL REGIONS OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES Taiga Plains Ecosystem Classification Group Department of Environment and Natural Resources Government of the Northwest Territories Revised 2009 ECOLOGICAL REGIONS OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES TAIGA PLAINS This report may be cited as: Ecosystem Classification Group. 2007 (rev. 2009). Ecological Regions of the Northwest Territories – Taiga Plains. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories, Yellowknife, NT, Canada. viii + 173 pp. + folded insert map. ISBN 0-7708-0161-7 Web Site: http://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/index.html For more information contact: Department of Environment and Natural Resources P.O. Box 1320 Yellowknife, NT X1A 2L9 Phone: (867) 920-8064 Fax: (867) 873-0293 About the cover: The small photographs in the inset boxes are enlarged with captions on pages 22 (Taiga Plains High Subarctic (HS) Ecoregion), 52 (Taiga Plains Low Subarctic (LS) Ecoregion), 82 (Taiga Plains High Boreal (HB) Ecoregion), and 96 (Taiga Plains Mid-Boreal (MB) Ecoregion). Aerial photographs: Dave Downing (Timberline Natural Resource Group). Ground photographs and photograph of cloudberry: Bob Decker (Government of the Northwest Territories). Other plant photographs: Christian Bucher. Members of the Ecosystem Classification Group Dave Downing Ecologist, Timberline Natural Resource Group, Edmonton, Alberta. Bob Decker Forest Ecologist, Forest Management Division, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories, Hay River, Northwest Territories. Bas Oosenbrug Habitat Conservation Biologist, Wildlife Division, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories. Charles Tarnocai Research Scientist, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. Tom Chowns Environmental Consultant, Powassan, Ontario. Chris Hampel Geographic Information System Specialist/Resource Analyst, Timberline Natural Resource Group, Edmonton, Alberta.
    [Show full text]
  • 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).
    [Show full text]
  • Description of the Ecoregions of the United States
    (iii) ~ Agrl~:::~~;~":,c ullur. Description of the ~:::;. Ecoregions of the ==-'Number 1391 United States •• .~ • /..';;\:?;;.. \ United State. (;lAn) Department of Description of the .~ Agriculture Forest Ecoregions of the Service October United States 1980 Compiled by Robert G. Bailey Formerly Regional geographer, Intermountain Region; currently geographer, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station Prepared in cooperation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and originally published as an unnumbered publication by the Intermountain Region, USDA Forest Service, Ogden, Utah In April 1979, the Agency leaders of the Bureau of Land Manage­ ment, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Geological Survey, and Soil Conservation Service endorsed the concept of a national classification system developed by the Resources Evaluation Tech­ niques Program at the Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, to be used for renewable resources evaluation. The classifica­ tion system consists of four components (vegetation, soil, landform, and water), a proposed procedure for integrating the components into ecological response units, and a programmed procedure for integrating the ecological response units into ecosystem associations. The classification system described here is the result of literature synthesis and limited field testing and evaluation. It presents one procedure for defining, describing, and displaying ecosystems with respect to geographical distribution. The system and others are undergoing rigorous evaluation to determine the most appropriate procedure for defining and describing ecosystem associations. Bailey, Robert G. 1980. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publication No. 1391, 77 pp. This publication briefly describes and illustrates the Nation's ecosystem regions as shown in the 1976 map, "Ecoregions of the United States." A copy of this map, described in the Introduction, can be found between the last page and the back cover of this publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat Guidelines for Mule Deer: California Woodland Chaparral Ecoregion
    THE AUTHORS : MARY L. SOMMER CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME WILDLIFE BRANCH 1812 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 REBECCA L. BARBOZA CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME SOUTH COAST REGION 4665 LAMPSON AVENUE, SUITE C LOS ALAMITOS, CA 90720 RANDY A. BOTTA CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME SOUTH COAST REGION 4949 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 ERIC B. KLEINFELTER CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CENTRAL REGION 1234 EAST SHAW AVENUE FRESNO, CA 93710 MARTHA E. SCHAUSS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CENTRAL REGION 1234 EAST SHAW AVENUE FRESNO, CA 93710 J. ROCKY THOMPSON CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CENTRAL REGION P.O. BOX 2330 LAKE ISABELLA, CA 93240 Cover photo by: California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Suggested Citation: Sommer, M. L., R. L. Barboza, R. A. Botta, E. B. Kleinfelter, M. E. Schauss and J. R. Thompson. 2007. Habitat Guidelines for Mule Deer: California Woodland Chaparral Ecoregion. Mule Deer Working Group, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 2 THE CALIFORNIA WOODLAND CHAPARRAL ECOREGION 4 Description 4 Ecoregion-specific Deer Ecology 4 MAJOR IMPACTS TO MULE DEER HABITAT 6 IN THE CALIFORNIA WOODLAND CHAPARRA L CONTRIBUTING FACTORS AND SPECIFIC 7 HABITAT GUIDELINES Long-term Fire Suppression 7 Human Encroachment 13 Wild and Domestic Herbivores 18 Water Availability and Hydrological Changes 26 Non-native Invasive Species 30 SUMMARY 37 LITERATURE CITED 38 APPENDICIES 46 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ule and black-tailed deer (collectively called Forest is severe winterkill. Winterkill is not a mule deer, Odocoileus hemionus ) are icons of problem in the Southwest Deserts, but heavy grazing the American West.
    [Show full text]
  • Lesser Antilles Mangroves
    Lesser Antilles mangroves - Encyclopedia of Earth http://www.eoearth.org/article/Lesser_Antilles_mangroves Encyclopedia of Earth Lesser Antilles mangroves Content Partner: World Wildlife Fund (other articles) Article Topics: Ecology , Conservation biology and Biodiversity This article has been reviewed and approved by the following Table of Contents Topic Editor: Mark McGinley (other articles) 1 Introduction Last Updated: November 17, 2008 2 Location and General Description 3 Biodiversity Features 4 Current Status 4.1 Types and Severity of Threats Introduction 5 Additional information on this ecoregion 6 Further Reading The small islands of the Lesser Antilles have less species diversity than the larger islands of the Greater Antilles but nonetheless have high levels of endemism. They also have a great diversity of habitats associated with environmental conditions related to differences in climate, elevation, rainfall, and salinity found in the different islands. Location and General Description The Lesser Antilles mangrove ecoregion is comprised of a chain of islands at the southeastern edge of the Caribbean Sea from Sombrero and Anguilla in the north, to Grenada in the south. An inner arc is of more recent volcanic origin and of higher elevation up to 1397 meters (m) on Martinique, while the outer arc consists of limestone on top of an eroded igneous rock layer, where elevation is much lower. Climate and rainfall levels are directly related to elevation, annual rainfall ranges from 750 millimeters (mm) on the outer island of Barbuda which has a tropical |arid climate, to 1928 mm on the inner island of Nevis, St. Kitts and Nevis. (Photograph by Roseau/Dominica where the climate is more tropical.
    [Show full text]
  • Riparian Ecology and Management in the Pacific Coastal Rainforest
    Articles Riparian Ecology and Management in the Pacific Coastal Rain Forest ROBERT J. NAIMAN, ROBERT E. BILBY, AND PETER A. BISSON FUNDAMENTAL RIPARIAN RESEARCH HAS he last two decades have seen an enormous global Tresearch effort focused on understanding the dynamics SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVED WATERSHED and managerial uses of riparian zones. Riparius, a Latin word meaning “belonging to the bank of a river,” refers to MANAGEMENT ON THE NORTHERN biotic communities living on the shores of streams, rivers, PACIFIC COAST ponds, lakes, and some wetlands. Riparian zones strongly influence the organization, diversity, and dynamics of communities associated with aquatic ecosystems (Gregory et al. 1991, Décamps 1996). Riparian areas possess distinct knowledge built by S.V. Gregory and his colleagues (Gre- ecological characteristics because of their interaction with gory et al. 1991). In this article, we summarize the scien- the aquatic system. Thus, their boundaries can be tific advances of the last decade in understanding the ecol- delineated by changes in soil conditions, vegetation, and ogy of PCE riparian zones and show how this other factors that reflect this aquatic–terrestrial interaction understanding directly contributes to better stream and (Naiman and Décamps 1990, 1997). watershed management. Riparian zones vary widely in their physical characteris- tics, which are vividly expressed by an array of life history The Pacific Coastal Rain Forest strategies and successional patterns. Consequently, these The PCE, also known as the Pacific Coastal Rain Forest, areas are among the biosphere’s most complex ecological extends from northern California to south-central Alaska systems and also among the most important for maintain- and east to the crests of the Cascade Mountains in the ing the vitality of the landscape and its rivers (Naiman and south and the Coastal Mountains in the north (Figure 2).
    [Show full text]
  • Asymmetric Terracing of Lunar Highland Craters: Influence of Pre-Impact Topography and Structure
    Proc. L~lnorPli~nel. Sci. Corrf. /Of11 (1979), p. 2597-2607 Printed in the United States of America Asymmetric terracing of lunar highland craters: Influence of pre-impact topography and structure Ann W. Gifford and Ted A. Maxwell Center for Earth and Planetary Studies, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institition, Washington, DC 20560 Abstract-The effects of variable pre-impact topography and substrate on slumping and terrace for- mation have been studied on a group of 30 craters in the lunar highlands. These craters are charac- terized by a distinct upper slump block and are all situated on the rim of a larger, older crater or a degraded rim segment. Wide, isolated terraces occur where the rim of the younger crater coincides with a rim segment of the older crater. The craters are all located in Nectarianlpre-Nectarian highland units, and range in age from Imbrian to Copernican. A proposed model for formation of slump blocks in these craters includes the existence of layers with different competence in an overturned rim of the pre-existing crater. Such layering could have resulted from overturning of more coherent layers during formation of the Nectarian and pre-Nec- tarian craters. A combination of material and topographic effects is therefore responsible for terrace formation. Similar terrain effects may be present on other planets and should be considered when interpreting crater statistics in relation to morphology. INTRODUCTION Slumping, terracing or wall failure is an important process in formation and mod- ification of lunar craters. The process of slumping has been investigated by both geometrical (Cintala et a1 ., 1977) and theoretical models (Melosh, 1977; Melosh and McKinnon, 1979); however, these studies are dependent on morphologic constraints imposed by the geologic setting of the craters.
    [Show full text]