Etd-Tamu-2005B-WISC-Yantis.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION AND THE EFFICACY OF PLANT DOMINANCE-BASED CLASSIFICATIONS IN PREDICTING THE OCCURRENCE OF PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES A Dissertation by JAMES HUGH YANTIS Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY August 2005 Major Subject: Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION AND THE EFFICACY OF PLANT DOMINANCE-BASED CLASSIFICATIONS IN PREDICTING THE OCCURRENCE OF PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES A Dissertation by JAMES HUGH YANTIS Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approved by: Chair of Committee, Nova J. Silvy Committee Members, R. Douglas Slack William E. Grant Fred E. Smeins Robert H. Benson Head of Department Robert D. Brown August 2005 Major Subject: Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences iii ABSTRACT Vegetation Classification and the Efficacy of Plant Dominance-Based Classifications in Predicting the Occurrence of Plant and Animal Species. (August 2005) James Hugh Yantis, B.A., The University of Texas at Austin; M.S., Texas A&M University Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Nova J. Silvy One strategy for conserving biodiversity is to select large-area preserves that complement each other so the maximum number of species is conserved. Estimates of biodiversity and complementarity are needed for optimum selection of preserves. Comparisons are made in part by defining and mapping vegetation associations under the assumption that candidate areas with no associations in common likely have high complementarity. Conversely, areas with many associations in common have low complementarity. Vegetation associations are often distinguished on the basis of the dominant plant species. Associations with markedly different dominants (e.g., evergreen and deciduous trees) are expected to indicate high complementarity. In this study I evaluated the complementarity of an evergreen forest and a deciduous forest. I also evaluated a dichotomy of subsoil texture. I compared 6 groups of species: (1) woody plants (Dicotyledonae), (2) birds (Aves), (3) small mammals (Mammalia) plus herptiles (Amphibia) and (Reptilia), (4) beetles iv (Coleoptera), (5) ants (Formicidae) plus velvet ants (Mutillidae), and (6) spiders (Araneae). I made the comparisons using canonical correspondence analysis (CCA), redundancy analysis (RDA), logistic regression, and 3 indices of biodiversity. In this study the species of dominant tree was more strongly associated with the distribution of species than was soil texture. Dominant tree and soil texture used together greatly improved the association with the distribution of species. The association defined by the dominant evergreen tree was not different than the association defined by the dominant deciduous tree, based on the criteria that an association is defined as having a Jaccard similarity index between 0.25 and 0.5. Similarities >0.5, as in this case, are too similar to be an association and are termed a subassociation. Evergreen forests and deciduous forests do not necessarily have high complementarity. Different dominant plant species do not necessarily define different associations. Dominant plant species are not necessarily useful in defining associations or higher-level classifications. v DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my loving wife, Shirley Beaman Hosea Yantis, who conducted every survey and procedure with me, slept in a hot or rain-soaked tent, arose at 0300 hr to do bird surveys, worked each day from well before daylight to well after dark, and, most importantly, picked the really big wolf spiders out of the pitfall traps when I was afraid to do it. vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank those individuals who helped me with this study. First I would like to thank those who either helped me identify species or did identify species. I thank Allen Dean for identifying 94 spiders to the species level from approximately 1,500 specimens. I thank Edward G. Riley for identifying 192 beetle species from approximately 2,500 specimens. I thank Bill Summerlin for identifying 22 ant species. I thank Donald G. Manley for identifying 31 velvet ant species. I thank the Texas Cooperative Wildlife Collections (TCWC), Texas A&M University for the use of their facilities and I thank Duane A. Schlitter for verifying the identification of some of the small mammal species. I thank the Tracy Herbarium for the use of their facilities and I thank Stephan L. Hatch and Dale A. Kruse for verifying some of the plant species. I thank the Biology Department Herbarium, Texas A&M University, for the use of their facilities and I thank Monique Dubrule Reed for verifying some of the plant species and Hugh D. Wilson for his encouragement and support. I thank Michael T. Longnecker for his time and patience in explaining and reviewing the statistical procedures. I thank Charles T. Hallmark for allowing me to use his research lab to analyze the soil samples. I thank David Synatzske and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) for allowing me to use and publish data from Chaparral Wildlife Management Area. vii I thank Nova J. Silvy for his steady support and encouragement for many years. I thank R. Douglas Slack, William E. Grant, Fred E. Smeins, and Robert H. Benson for the discussions, encouragements, constructive criticisms, and for directing me to people, resources, and publications that helped me more fully understand the field of ecology. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT............................................................................................. iii DEDICATION.......................................................................................... v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................... vi TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................. x LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................... xi INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1 Study Objective ............................................................................ 1 Conservation Strategy.................................................................. 2 Species Concepts and Considerations......................................... 4 STUDY AREA ......................................................................................... 9 Area.............................................................................................. 9 Plot Selection ............................................................................... 12 METHODS .............................................................................................. 23 Plot Design................................................................................... 23 Environmental Variables .............................................................. 23 Species ........................................................................................ 34 Analysis........................................................................................ 44 RESULTS ............................................................................................... 56 Similarity Indices .......................................................................... 56 Logistic Regression ...................................................................... 60 CCA and RDA .............................................................................. 86 Comparing RDA with Logistic Regression.................................... 95 Conclusions and Relevance......................................................... 95 ix Page DISCUSSION.......................................................................................... 99 Interpretation of Graphs ............................................................... 99 Data and Analyses ....................................................................... 101 Background and Context.............................................................. 111 Example ....................................................................................... 144 SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS ................................ 149 Findings........................................................................................ 149 Plausible Adjuncts........................................................................ 150 Nomenclature............................................................................... 152 Mapping ....................................................................................... 153 LITERATURE CITED.............................................................................. 157 APPENDIX A .......................................................................................... 169 APPENDIX B .......................................................................................... 174 APPENDIX C .......................................................................................... 188 APPENDIX D .......................................................................................... 192 APPENDIX E .......................................................................................... 196 APPENDIX F..........................................................................................