Geology As a Georegional Influence on Quercus Fagaceae Distribution
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
GEOLOGY AS A GEOREGIONAL INFLUENCE ON Quercus FAGACEAE DISTRIBUTION IN DENTON AND COKE COUNTIES OF CENTRAL AND NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS AND CHOCTAW COUNTY OF SOUTHEASTERN OKLAHOMA, USING GIS AS AN ANALYTICAL TOOL George F. Maxey, B.S., M.S. Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS December 2007 APPROVED: C. Reid Ferring, Major Professor Miguel Avevedo, Committee Member Kenneth Dickson, Committee Member Donald Lyons, Committee Member Paul Hudak, Committee Member and Chair of the Department of Geography Sandra L. Terrell, Dean of the Robert B. Toulouse School of Graduate Studies Maxey, George F. Geology as a Georegional Influence on Quercus Fagaceae Distribution in Denton and Coke Counties of Central and North Central Texas and Choctaw County of Southeastern Oklahoma, Using GIS as an Analytical Tool. Doctor of Philosophy (Environmental Science), December 2007, 198 pp., 30 figures, 24 tables, references, 57 titles. This study elucidates the underlying relationships for the distribution of oak landcover on bedrock and soil orders in two counties in Texas and one in Oklahoma. ESRI’s ArcGis and ArcMap was used to create surface maps for Denton and Coke Counties, Texas and Choctaw County, Oklahoma. Attribute tables generated in GIS were exported into a spreadsheet software program and frequency tables were created for every formation and soil order in the tri-county research area. The results were both a visual and numeric distribution of oaks in the transition area between the eastern hardwood forests and the Great Plains. Oak distributions are changing on this transition area of the South Central Plains. The sandy Woodbine and Antlers formations traditionally associated with the largest oak distribution are carrying oak coverage of approximately 31-32% in Choctaw and Denton Counties. The calcareous Blackland and Grand Prairies are traditionally associated with treeless grasslands, but are now carrying oak and other tree landcover up to 18.9%. Human intervention, including the establishment of artificial, political and social boundaries, urbanization, farming and fire control have altered the natural distribution of oaks and other landcover of this unique georegion. Copyright 2007 by George F. Maxey ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank my wife Susan Maxey for all her love, support and never ending encouragement. It would not be possible to thank everyone that offered encouragement throughout the years of work this dissertation entailed. Therefore I wish to first acknowledge those that guided my work, my committee members: Dr. Reid Ferring, Dr. Paul Hudak, Dr. Miguel Acevedo, Dr. Kenneth Dickson and Dr. Donald Lyons. The following people encouraged, helped, cajoled and inspired: Sean Webster, Candy King, Dr. James Kennedy, Dr. Bruce Hunter, Ron Dilulio, Tami Deaton, Eva Ramirez, Dr. Robin Buckallew, Dr. Pinliang Dong, the faculty and staff of the Department of Geography, the faculty and staff of the Environmental Science Department, and the UNT library staff. Finally to all those that I may not have mentioned by name, thank you. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...............................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ v LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................ viii Chapters 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1 Hypothesis and Research Questions.............................................. 3 The Georegion Concept.................................................................. 4 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................. 7 3. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 27 Accuracy of GAP Data .................................................................. 40 Accuracy of Digital GAT Quads..................................................... 43 Accuracy of Soils Data .................................................................. 44 Geologic Setting............................................................................ 44 Distribution of Quercus in Coke, Denton and Choctaw Counties .. 51 4. DATA PREPARATION AND ANALYSIS.................................................. 54 RDA Visualization of Lithologic Correlations ................................. 83 Analysis Summary ........................................................................ 92 5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................ 94 Recommendations ........................................................................ 99 APPENDIX .................................................................................................................. 103 REFERENCES............................................................................................................ 194 iv LIST OF TABLES Page 2.1 The Geology of Denton County, Winton (1925).................................................. 15 3.1 All County Statistics............................................................................................ 27 3.2 Accuracy results of the USGS GAP Analysis Program....................................... 41 3.3 Example of Landcover Regrouping Choctaw Oklahoma .................................... 42 3.4 Choctaw County, Oklahoma Formations ............................................................ 45 3.5 Formation Composition of Coke County, Texas ................................................. 47 3.6 Formation Composition of Denton County, Texas.............................................. 49 4.1 Generalized Table of Formations in Coke, Denton, and Choctaw Counties....... 55 4.2 Surface Exposed Formations, Compositional Descriptions and Symbols for Coke County, Texas .................................................................................................... 56 4.3 Surface Exposed Formations, Compositional Descriptions and Symbols for Denton County, Texas........................................................................................ 57 4.4 Surface Exposed Formations, Compositional, Descriptions and Symbols for Choctaw County, Oklahoma............................................................................... 58 4.5 County Area Statistic Totals ............................................................................... 59 4.6 Formations, Areas, Percentage Oak Landcover and Total Ratio of Oak Distribution per Formation for Coke County, Texas............................................ 61 4.7 Bedrock Type and Soil Order Percentages for Coke County, Texas.................. 63 4.8 Bedrock Type and Soil Order Percentages for Denton County, Texas............... 64 4.9 Bedrock Type and Soil Order Percentages for Choctaw County, Oklahoma...... 65 4.10 Number of Oak Species in Choctaw, Denton and Coke Counties versus Average Monthly Temperature and Precipitation.............................................................. 68 4.11 Formations, Areas, Percentage Oak Landcover and Total Ratio of Oak Distribution per Formation for Denton County, Texas......................................... 71 4.12 Formations, Areas, Percentage Oak Landcover and Total Ratio of Oak Distribution per Formation for Choctaw County, Oklahoma................................ 73 v 4.13 Soil Order Area, Percentage Oak Grouping and Landcover per Soil Order, and Oak/Soil Order Ratio for Coke County, Texas.................................................... 80 4.14 Soil Order Area, Percentage Oak Landcover and Grouping per Soil Order, and Oak/Soil Order Ratio for Denton County, Texas................................................. 80 4.15 Soil Order Area, Percentage Oak Grouping and Landcover per Soil Order, and Oak/Soil Order Ratio for Choctaw County, Oklahoma........................................ 81 4.16 Canoco Redundancy Analysis for All Counties and Each County Individually ... 91 A.1 Choctaw County, Oklahoma Monthly and Annual Precipitation from 1948 to1999 ......................................................................................................................... 104 A.2 Denton County, Texas Monthly and Annual Precipitation from 1949 2002....... 106 A.3 Coke County, Texas Monthly and Annual Precipitation from 1949 to 1999...... 108 A.4 Choctaw County, Oklahoma Monthly and Average Annual Temperature from 1948 to 1999..................................................................................................... 110 A.5 Denton County, Texas Monthly and Average Annual Temperature from 1949 to 2002 ................................................................................................................. 112 A.6 Coke County, Texas Monthly and Average Annual Temperature from 1949 to1999 .............................................................................................................. 114 A.7 Soil Survey of Choctaw County, Oklahoma, 1979............................................ 116 A.8 Soil Survey of Coke County, Texas, 1974 ........................................................ 118 A.9 Soil Survey of Denton County, Texas, 1980..................................................... 120 A.10 Oak Trees, Common Names, and the Counties Where They are Located....... 124 A.11 Coke County, Texas Soil Orders on Geologic Formations ..............................