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 ...... 128
A.12 Denton County, Texas Soil Orders on Geologic Formations ...... 133
A.13 Choctaw County, Oklahoma Soil Orders on Geologic Formations ...... 138
A.14 Coke County, Texas Landcover on Geologic Formations ...... 143
A.15 Denton County, Texas Landcover on Geologic Formations ...... 157
A.16 Choctaw County, Oklahoma Landcover on Geologic Formations ...... 166
A.17 Coke County, Texas Landcover on Soil Orders...... 179
vi
A.18 Denton County, Texas Landcover on Soil Orders ...... 182
A.19 Choctaw County, Oklahoma Landcover on Soil Orders ...... 186
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1.1 Location map of Choctaw County, Oklahoma and Coke and Denton Counties, Texas...... 4
2.1 Bailey's province map of Texas and Oklahoma modified from USDA Forest Service and National Atlas of the United States ...... 8
2.2 Partial copy of the John Arrowsmith official survey map Kennedy attached to his 1841 official diplomatic report to Great Britain...... 10
2.3 R. T. Hill's 1901 map of the Eastern and Western Cross Timbers and the Grand and Black Prairies...... 12
2.4 Partial copy of Fenneman's preliminary map of the physiographic division of the United States, 1916 edition, showing Texas and Oklahoma ...... 14
2.5 Bailey's domain from USDA Forest Service and National Atlas of the United States ...... 19
2.6 Bailey's division from USDA Forest Service and National Atlas of the United States ...... 20
2.7 Bailey's section from USDA Forest Service and National Atlas of the United States ...... 21
3.1 Denton County, Texas geology ...... 28
3.2 Choctaw County, Oklahoma geology ...... 29
3.3 Coke County, Texas geology...... 30
3.4 Denton County, Texas oak distribution...... 31
3.5 Simplified flow chart for manipulation of data in ArcGIS™ ...... 32
3.6 Coke County, Texas oak distribution ...... 33
3.7 Choctaw County, Oklahoma oak distribution...... 33
3.8 Denton County, Texas soil orders ...... 34
3.9 Coke County, Texas soil orders...... 35
3.10 Choctaw County, Oklahoma soil orders ...... 35
3.11 Average annual precipitation distribution...... 36
viii
3.12 Average annual temperature distribution...... 37
3.13 GIS model for calculating total areas...... 39
4.1 Total percent of soil order coverage Coke County...... 67
4.2 Total percent of soil order coverage Denton County ...... 69
4.3 Total percent of soil order coverage Choctaw County ...... 70
4.4 Total percent oak versus formation Coke County...... 74
4.5 Total percent oak versus formation Denton County...... 74
4.6 Total percent oak versus formation Choctaw County ...... 75
4.7 Canoco redundancy analysis for all counties ...... 86
4.8 Canoco redundancy analysis for Coke County...... 87
4.9 Canoco redundancy analysis for Denton County...... 89
4.10 Canoco redundancy analysis for Choctaw County ...... 90
ix CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Observers of the vegetation in the North Central region of Texas and South
Central Oklahoma have commented on the unique arrangement of the grasslands of the
Black and Grand Prairie, and the oaks of the Eastern and Western Cross Timbers. In many articles, papers, and monologues there has been reference to an idea that, ‘the
geology controls the distribution of the vegetation’ (Bailey, 1985; Blair, 1950; Bruner,
1931; Cuyler, 1931; Dyksterhuis, 1948; Griffith and Omernik, 1994; Hill, 1901; Stephens and Homes, 1989). However, no specific studies have been conducted to examine the actual relationship between, climate, geology, and soils. This study elucidates the underlying relationships for the distribution of oaks in Texas and Oklahoma, and their corresponding distinctive ecosystems.
Geology underpins a georegion, directly or indirectly, at all spatial and temporal
scales and acts as an influence on both the areal distribution and the type of vegetation
growing on the various types of bedrock. Nevertheless, geologic influences on a
georegion are not fully understood, with respect to both independent and dependent
relationships between the vegetation and the processes operating in that system. A
spatial framework is necessary to understand the distinctive geologic features and the
influence these features have on the relative biological distribution in a georegion.
Identification of the relationships between organisms and their environments within
distinctive geological areas could be utilized in conservation planning. Further, geologic
factors may have varying degrees of impact upon the environment of distribution for the
oak Quercus a member of Fagaceae, the beech family.
1 Large tracts of centuries old post oak, Quercus stellata, are still found in parts of southeast Kansas, Oklahoma, and central Texas. The Western and Eastern Cross
Timbers are a complex mosaic of upland forest, savanna, and glade which form the broad ecotone between the eastern deciduous forests and the grasslands of the southern Great Plains. Presettlement Cross Timbers are believed to have covered some 30,526 square miles (Therrell and Stahle, 1998). Oaks of the Cross Timbers were not ideal for lumber production, and were cleared for farming. Nevertheless, segments of the original Cross Timbers have survived, much of it on steep terrain that was unsuitable for farming. Thousands of ancient post oak can be found in this region, and the Cross Timbers are a unique forest type in the central United States.
Oaks of the Cross Timbers do not satisfy the stereotype for ancient forests, such as massive eastern hardwoods or the giant sequoia of California. Consequently, public and private land managers do not realize these ancient forests are drought-stressed woodlands, populated by low-stature, slow-growing trees, some of which have been dated to 200 to 400 years old (Therrell and Stahle, 1998). Failure to understand the distribution and value of the ancient oaks of the region including the Cross Timbers, promotes ongoing fragmentation and destruction as urban development occurs, and is a major threat to the viability of this ecosystem and to the biodiversity, water quality, and recreational values it supports in Oklahoma and the North Central Texas Region.
An explanation of the tendency of these ancient oaks, and surrounding grasslands, to prefer certain types of lithology may provide: better water conservation, a better understanding of the recreational uses in areas populated by the oaks, and
2 promotes the development of new landscaping techniques by developers (Stahle et al.,
2003).
Hypothesis and Research Questions
This dissertation introduces an approach, based on a geologic framework for
defining and analyzing lithologic influence on oak trees, in a natural environment, in
three counties, Coke and Denton Counties in Texas and Choctaw County in
southeastern Oklahoma (Fig. 1.1). The purpose of the dissertation is to evaluate the
interaction of geologic, biotic, geomorphic influences on oak species growth and
robustness in the North Central Texas and South Central Oklahoma Georegion.
Specific research questions addressed in this study include: 1) Does the bedrock lithology have an influence on the distribution of oak land cover in the three county
study areas? 2) What soil order types support the communities of oak growth?
Chapter 1 introduces the topic, presents the research hypothesis and questions,
and discusses the georegion concept. A review of literature examining the interest in
natural vegetation distribution starting from 1841 is presented in chapter 2. Chapter 3
presents the methodology and geologic settings of the research areas. Chapter 4
presents the preparation and analysis of the GIS generated data using ArcMap, and
Canonical Community Ordination (CANOCO) which is a statistical package with the
capability to analyze and visualize the relationships between the oaks and their bedrock
lithology and soil order. Chapter 5 presents the final conclusions of the research, along
with recommendations for further studies.
3
Figure 1.1: Location map of Choctaw County, Oklahoma, and Coke and Denton Counties, Texas.
The Georegion Concept
Political boundaries have contributed to the fragmentation of natural
biogeographical areas. Fragmentation of natural boundaries, by highway and urban
development has led to loss of floral and faunal diversity, and ecological habitat. The
basic philosophy of the georegion concept is to define the parameters wherein geology
controls, limits or influences biological functioning in a geological based system that is
necessary for the continuation of all life on earth including our species(May, 1998).
Georegion maps should be used to develop criteria for the preservation of biological
habitat, management of water quality standards, monitoring human impacts and the
development of maintenance programs within a georegion. Sustainability of a
georegions is necessary for the ecological integrity of Earth communities (May, 1998).
4 The recognition of a georegion or a series of linked georegions provides a support
mechanism for assessment, research, inventory, monitoring, and management of a healthy and diverse ecosystem or information for the restoration of a damaged system.
Finally, the concept should be expanded to include the study of all relationships in a
georegion between geology and ecology and is called geoecology (May, 1998).
The term georegion should not be confused as an approximate equivalent for
bioregion, ecoregion, watershed or drainage basin. A bioregion is easier defined by its
etymology than by its usage. Webster’s Dictionary defines the term “Bio”, from the
Greek as a combining form for living things or life; “Regio” from Latin means region, a
derivative of the word “regal” which is to rule. Therefore, a bioregion could be defined as
a large, indefinite part of the surface of the Earth that life rules. In application, however,
a bioregion is generally used as a study area. In an effort to clarify the differences
between ecoregion and watershed, Omernik and Bailey (1997), defined an ecoregion as
evolving,
In broad terms, ecological regions, at any scale, can be defined as areas with relative homogeneity in ecosystems. Our intent has been to depict regions within which the mosaic of ecosystem components (Biotic and abiotic as well as terrestrial and aquatic) is different than that of adjacent regions. (Omernik and Bailey, 1997, 937)
Currently, ecoregions are not chosen based on specified data, rather, areas are
selected and then topics within the areas are studied. Collected data, which generally
consists of species counts, are generally not relevant for helping to explain interactions in other ecoregions. Extrapolation beyond site specific studies are limited, without an understanding of the underlying influences on spatial patterns in the ecoregion, therefore a never ending need for site specific studies is fostered (Omernik, 1993).
5 Spatial patterns in an ecoregion’s quality of vegetation production and potential, and the quality and quantity of environmental resources correspond poorly, if at all (Omernik,
1993). A constant problem is that the degree of generalization increases as the scale of
the ecoregion study increases. In order to make meaningful extrapolation from the site-
specific data, an understanding of ecosystems on all scales must be developed
(Omernik, 1993). Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of site specific ecoregion studies have
been performed in the United States and other parts of the world. Most have been
watershed, or catchment type studies that explore natural processes and the
relationships between ecosystem capabilities and human interactions. Finally, unlike
ecoregions, watersheds are more easily defined as topographic areas within which
surface water runoff drains to a specific point, such as a stream or a lake (Omernik and
Bailey 1997).
A generalization of an often cited phrase found in papers and texts on the
geology of the North Central Texas and Southeastern Oklahoma regions could be
stated, ‘everyone knows that the bedrock geology controls the distribution of oaks in
these regions.’ In spite of this common expression, there are no studies dedicated
solely to examining the role geology plays in the distribution of oaks in the North Central
Texas and South Central Oklahoma regions. The distribution of oak trees in parts of
Texas and Oklahoma certainly appear to be influenced by the underlying bedrock
lithology or other aspects of geology. Georegion is the concept of geology, as a key
control, linking with ecology, biology and climatology. Therein lays the impetus for this
dissertation to study the influence of geology on woody vegetation, the oaks Quercus of family Fagaceae.
6 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Attempts to explain the distribution of grass, forbs and browse vegetation had a comparatively early beginning in the North Central region of Texas, but comprehensive analytical investigations were not effected until E. J. Dyksterhuis in 1948. Early hypotheses of the distribution of vegetation focused on chemical requirements, climatic and edaphic controls. Edaphic controls originally were a term applied to any soil characteristic that influenced the growth of vegetation; however in the modern application it includes ecological formations and influences of soil or substrate.
Vegetation correlated with physiographic features dominated the studies until the mid
1970’s when Bailey (1976) introduced his first ecoregion map of the United States. It was based on the analysis of environmental factors, which probably acted as selective forces in establishing various ecosystems. Bailey delineated fifty-two ecoregions on the
“Province” level, of which 13 can be seen on the attached map of Oklahoma and Texas
(Fig 2.1). According to Bailey, the delineation is based on subjective criteria; therefore, there may be as many sets of ecoregions as there are experts to analyze the information. Lorna K. Rhodes (1980) conducted the first comparative study in Oklahoma concerning association of vegetation types and geologic formations. Site studies, specific to vegetation families and lithologic controls are rare.
In 1841 William Kennedy Esquire of the British Diplomatic Corps introduced the
Cross Timbers of North Texas to literary persons in both in the United States and in
Europe as a natural curiosity, a great landmark and a remarkable topographic feature dominated by oak trees. He wrote that Texas presented three distinct natural aspects,
7
Figure 2.1: Texas and Oklahoma modified from Bailey's province map, USDA Forest Service and National Atlas of the Unites States. Gray lines outline sections.
divisible into corresponding regions: the plain, undulating or rolling, and hilly or mountainous. Kennedy (1841) stated the forests and groves of Texas included all description of trees that could be found in the United States, with many peculiar to the
8 soil. He commented on the Cross Timbers as having such remarkable uniformity as to
lead some to believe that its origin was due to the work of an unknown race of men, and
may have been the boundary between two nations. Figure 2.2 is a partial copy of the
John Arrowsmith survey map Kennedy attached to his official diplomatic report to Great
Britain. Note the north-south representation of the Cross Timbers from the Red River south to the Brazos de Dios, forming the greatest landmark of the western prairies according to Kennedy’s report (Kennedy, 1841).
The apparent anomaly of the forest of post oak, Quercus stellata and blackjack oak, Quercus marilandica, within the mid-continental grassland had received only general treatment by ecologists until E. J. Dyksterhuis’ 1948 monograph, The
Vegetation of the Western Cross Timbers. Dyksterhuis points out that if Kennedy had actually visited the Cross Timbers he might have noticed the underlying sandy soils contrasting sharply with the clays underlying the adjoining prairies.
Dyksterhuis 1948 indicates that as early as 1840 a Colonel Stiff surmised that the
Cross Timbers were traceable to certain geologic units and that the Western Cross
Timbers marked what was once an ancient beach of the Gulf Coastal region.
Dyksterhuis goes on to say that the retreating Cretaceous sea left alternating arenaceous and calcareous materials that presently support the growth of the Eastern and Western Cross Timbers, and the Prairie. The Fort Worth Prairie formed on calcareous deposits of limestone and marl, originally laid down by a paleo marine environment while the Eastern and Western Cross Timbers occur on sandstones deposited by a regressive sea. The purposes of Dyksterhuis’ studies were in part to determine: boundaries and provide a quantitative record of vegetation, observe the
9 nature of deviation from average floristic distribution, observe co-actions associated with
grazing animals and finally, and to create a reference of the plant ecology of the Cross
Timbers for land use and management (Dyksterhuis, 1948).
Cross Timbers
Figure 2.2: A partial copy of the John Arrowsmith’s official survey map, attached to Kennedy’s 1841 official diplomatic report to Great Britain. North is at the top of the page.
10 In 1901, R. T. Hill published a study of the geology of all North Texas including mention of distinctive physiographic regions, the Black and Grand Prairies. Hill states that nowhere is there a more intimate relationship between geologic formations and the physiography than in the North Texas region. Climate acting on the peculiarities of a formation’s hardness, lithology, stratification, porosity, and permeability result in various relief forms. Correspondingly, the intricacies of stream valleys, plains, escarpments and their vegetation depended upon the relative properties of the underlying lithology. Each formation weathered into its own distinctive type of soil accompanied by floral individualities. Hill 1901 described four distinct irregular parallel sub-provinces, of the
Cretaceous prairies of Texas and Oklahoma listed as follows from east to west: the
Black Prairie, the Eastern Cross Timbers, the Grand Prairie, and the Western Cross
Timbers (Figure 2.3).
The Black Prairie gets its name from the black calcareous clay soils covering the region, believed to be the residuum of the underlying marls and chalks. West of the
Black Prairie, Hill describes the Eastern Cross Timbers as a belt of blackjack and post oak trees ten miles wide and one-hundred-eighty miles long growing in the Woodbine,
Pawpaw, and Denison formations (Denton , Weno, Pawpaw and Main Street) extending from the Red River south through Cooke, Denton, Tarrant, Johnson, Hill and McLennan counties. To the west of the Eastern Cross Timbers is the approximately 20,000 square miles of treeless Grand Prairie in Texas and Oklahoma. The Grand Prairie differs from the Blackland Prairie in several ways. The underlying lithology is erosion resistant, consisting of bands of limestone with alternation marls and chalky strata having more angular cliffs and slopes. Finally, the most western province is the Western Cross
11 Timber consisting of upland forest growth of post and blackjack oak growing on sandy soils formed on the Antlers and Paluxy formations (Hill, 1901).
Figure 2.3: R.T. Hill’s 1901 map of the Western and Eastern Cross Timbers and the Grand and Black Prairies. North is at the top of the page.
In 1911 Chas N. Gould wrote an article explaining sequence of deposition and paleo-depositional environment of the various lithologies found in Oklahoma, the northern extension of the cretaceous prairies (Gould, 1911). Geographers such as
12 Fenneman (1938) drew on Gould's work when constructing natural divisions for North
America. Starting in 1913 the Association of American Geographers devoted itself to
developing a scheme of natural divisions for the United States. At the same time, the
Forestry Bureau, the division of Pomology (United States Department of Agriculture)
and some state geologists and geographers contacted the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) demanding that natural boundaries be described for educational and
economic work. A committee headed by N. M. Fenneman produced a map of the United
States in 1916, showing division on three orders: major divisions, provinces, and sections. The broadest black lines separate the major divisions, numbers distinguish
provinces, and letters indicated sections (Figure 2.4). Criteria of the divisions were not
limited to natural, lithographic or physiographic boundaries, but incorporated dominant
elements of nature with respect to each division. Structure, process and stage played
integral parts in the division process. Physiographic divisions of the United States may be explained as constructive and destructive events affecting both large and small areas (Fenneman, 1922).
Winton (1925) built on R. T. Hill’s work and described the geology, physiography, economic geology, paleontology, micrology and vegetation of Denton County, and acknowledged a remarkable ‘coincidence’ between the soils and the geology in the
Denton area. Included in this classic monograph is the statement that the Woodbine and Pawpaw formations are usually wooded with blackjack and scrub oaks while the
Fort Worth formation is usually treeless. Table 2.1 was constructed from information taken from Winton (1925) and shows relations between formations, common fossils, lithology, thickness and some woody vegetation.
13
Figure 2.4: Partial copy of Fenneman’s 1916 edition preliminary map of the physiographic division of the United States, showing Texas and Oklahoma. North is at the top of the page. Straight lines are longitude and latitude at approximately 2 degrees.
Botanist Benjamin C. Tharp (1926) gave a comprehensive account of Texas vegetation east of the 98th meridian and described the Cross Timbers as residual of a
wetter period, and possibly the western-most fringes of the eastern hardwood forests.
Rainfall in the North Central Texas area varies from 45 to less than 30 inches at the
14 western edge of the Cross Timbers. The sandy soils underlain by red or yellowish clay suggests edaphic distributional controls, rather than critical climatic variations as the controlling factor in the oak forest distribution.
Table 2.1: Modified from Winton’s 1925, The Geology of Denton County
Thickness Formation Common Fossils Lithology Vegetation (feet) White limestone with Austin Chalk ~ ~ ~ thin seams of marl Microfauna, shark Black oily shales, Eagle Ford 500 ~ teeth sandstone ledges Blackjack Sandstone, clay and Woodbine ~ 500 and scrub shales oaks Gryphea Marls and thin Grayson 39 ~ mucronata limestone Kingena wacoensis, MainStreet Limestone 14-20 ~ Turrilites brazoensis Blackjack Dwarfed Pyrite Reddish clay, red Pawpaw and scrub Fauna sandstone oaks Gryphea Blue-gray shales, Weno washitensis, clay, “quarry” 66-105 ~ Ostrea carinata limestone Gryphea Denton washitensis, Limestone, marl, clay 25-35 ~ Ostrea carinata Schloenbachia Alternating limestone Fort Worth leonensis, 25-35 Treeless and marl Hemiaster elegans Duck Creek Hamites (bottom) ~ 110 ~ Gryphea navia Calcareous clays and Kiamita 42-0 ~ (top) this sandy limestone Goodland ~ Limestone 42-75 ~ Gryphea Marcoui Walnut Sandstone, clay 14-16 ~ (top)
Note: ( ˜ ) No data given.
15 Bruner (1931) working on the ecology of the Cross Timbers of Oklahoma,
regarded the forest as oak-hickory savannah. He states, “Climatically the area should
be dominated by grass, but the open porous soil permits the growth of trees and, in
places, turns the balance decidedly in their favor” (Bruner, 1931, 143).
In 1931, Robert H. Cuyler conducted research in the Austin Quadrangle, central
Texas Cretaceous section, for the purpose of determining whether plants could be
indicators of geologic formations. His article provides a descriptive narrative of twelve
formations and their dominant, indigenous woody vegetation. His methodology for
obtaining data was mapping the characteristic plants or association of plants and
comparing with a geologic map of the same region. Results of the investigation show a
general association of two or more dominant woody or non-woody plant species with
varying lithologies. Cuyler (1931) predicted that vegetation patterns could be used to
identify the presence and location of faults. He also notes that anticlines and synclines
in Montague County, Texas are revealed by noticing the curved patterns of vegetation
corresponding to the contact between the Pennsylvanian and Cretaceous.
Sellards, Atkins, and Plummer (1932) described a general westward decrease in
rainfall having two effects on the topographic expression of the Mesozoic and Paleozoic
formations: decrease in vegetation and consequent sparseness of the soil cover
removed by erosion. “The vegetation and soils are results in part of the peculiarities of
the rock formations, in part of the amount of rainfall” (Sellards et al., 1932, 279).
McBryde (1933) studied the vegetation and habitat of the Carrizo sands and found Quercus stellata the dominant vegetation in the entire 450-mile strip of sand stretching from the Rio Grande to Cass County in northeast Texas, and then southward
16 to Nacogdoches. The association of woody vegetation to sands persisted through a
precipitation range from more than 45 to less than 25 inches of rain, with increasing
temperature, decreasing humidity and consequently increasing water demands.
According to McBryde, uniform edaphic factors resident in soils depend upon the nature
of the underlying rock mass, which in turn determine the composition and local
distribution of plant associations.
Blair, 1950 examined the diversity of environments for plant and animal life in
Texas. He concluded that while climatic conditions generally controlled plant
distribution, physiographic features such drainage systems, mountains, plains, plateaus,
and scarps also influenced and tended to complicate what normally would be a fairly
simple pattern of distribution. Blair describes three major biota and seven biotic
provinces in Texas and five in Oklahoma.
Previous articles have alluded to the connection between geology and
vegetation. Duck and Fletcher (1943) compared source regions of major plant
associations with location of geologic formations from Miser et al.’s The Geologic Map
of Oklahoma (1954), and then grouped them by lithology. Rhodes (1980) conducted a
comparative study concerning association of vegetation types and geologic formation,
or rock types, in Oklahoma. Methods involved field data collection for the number of
times each vegetation type was found in association with any given geologic formation at the southeastern corner of each township in Oklahoma. Rhodes’ conclusion was that rock types and vegetation are found to be significantly associated in the state of
Oklahoma.
17 In the 1990s interest in ecology as a methodology for inventorying natural resources was needed to evaluate management strategies for resource planning. Initial inventories centered on economic resources such as timber, or grazing land, but gave no consideration as to how resources are integrated or interact in the ecological realm.
The problem, as Bailey (1983) describes it, is to find a system that classifies land as an integrated entity, but is still suitable for many prospective users on multiscale ecosystem analysis. In personal conversation with Bailey, he said that there is need to examine the role of geology’s influence on vegetation.
In 1976 Bailey constructed a 1:7,500,000-scale map of the United States’ ecoregions based on the analysis of environmental factors that most probably acted as a selective force in establishing various ecosystems. Ecological land classification, divided into variously sized ecosystem units have significance both for estimating ecosystem productivity and responses to management practices. Bailey writes that in order to make management estimates, the relationships between ecosystem productivity and probable response to management practices must be developed.
Relationships that identify homogeneous geographical areas with similar ecosystems developed on material possessing similar properties are one way to establish site- production relationships. Vegetation maps of this scale work well for delineating climatic regions of the world but, “Boundaries of the climatic regions were altered in some cases to make them conform to vegetation boundaries” (Bailey, 1983, 371).
Bailey’s hierarchy consisted of four levels: domain (Figure 2.5), division (Figure
2.6), province (Figure 2.1) and section (Figure 2.7). Even so, vegetation persisted into areas beyond normal climatic boundaries, and was considered to be edaphically
18 controlled, thus requiring an even lower level of classification and more detailed maps.
On the surface the ecoregion concept may appear definitive, but in fact the concept
must be tested and validated on numerous levels before long-range planning and
analysis are applied to the field of management (Bailey, 1983).
Figure 2.5: Texas and Oklahoma modified from Bailey's 1976 domain map, from the USDA Forest Service and National Atlas of the United States. Pale gray lines outline sections.
19
Figure 2.6: Texas and Oklahoma modified from Bailey's 1976 divisions, from USDA forests Service and the National Atlas of the United States. Pale gray lines outline sections.
20
Figure 2.7: Texas and Oklahoma modified from Bailey's 1976 section, from USDA Forest Service and the National Atlas of the United States. Pale gray lines outline sections.
Bailey compared ecological systems in his 1985 article of Ecological
Regionalization in the United States and Canada. Canadian and U.S. ecoregion
concepts could not be directly correlated, but both approaches to regionalization
21 possessed a common approach based on an integrated knowledge of climate, geology, geomorphology, soils and vegetation. Bailey concluded that, regardless of the approach, the criteria by which ecoregions are recognized and mapped do not have sufficient detail (Bailey, 1985A). The landscape may be conceived as ecosystem(s), interacting in a hierarchy of spatial scales. An ecological map shows ecosystems and sub systems that are associations of interacting physical abiotic and biotic features, and there are numerous reasons for recognizing the various scales of ecosystems. Climate, the fundamental source of energy and moisture, acts as a primary control for macroecosystems. Smaller divisions within major ecosystems may be recognized by landforms defined by: relief, topography and geologic substrate, thus providing the best means of identifying ecosystems on a local level. Various scales for ecosystems will provide environmental managers with effective information for different management- conservation problems (Bailey, 1985B).
In 1986 Bailey and Hogg proposed an international mapping project to delineate six major attribute groups of ecoregions. Influence on a macroclimatic scale would govern the distribution of the first series of ecosystem regions. The second grouping would include succession through stable state climax vegetation as the defining criterion for grouping the ecosystem. The third of the attribute groups is the landform, with its geologic substrate, slope and relief. This is of particular interest in light of the purpose of this dissertation: to examine the influence of lithology on oak vegetation in Texas, and
Oklahoma. Fourth, correlate, simplify and identify distinct ecological units within mountainous ecosystems. Fifth, study ecotones, transition zones or fuzzy boundaries as a separate region in and of itself. Finally, study the attribute groups to see what patterns
22 and relationships emerge from the associations of geology, soils, vegetation and climate
(Bailey & Hogg, 1986).
Stephens and Holmes (1989) note that a range of climatic and soil conditions
influence vegetation variations in the North Texas region. In personal communication
with Dr. Holmes concerning the influence of geology on vegetation, he stated that the
vegetation map in the Historical Atlas of Texas, was the direct result of his own research
and he was astounded at the similarity in appearance between the vegetation and
geologic maps. The fundamental question facing all ecoregion mappers is how can the boundaries of all the various systems be determined? The Environmental Protection
Agency’s first map of ecoregions for the United States was compiled in 1987 with a
scale of 1:3,168,000. Resulting from this effort was the relative importance of
characteristics that explain variations in ecosystems from place to place and on
hierarchical levels. Information mapped for the ecoregion(s) generally included soils,
physiographic or land surface form, vegetation, and land use (Omernik, 1987).
Omernik and Bailey (1997) collaborated in an effort to distinguish between watersheds and ecoregions, thus acknowledging the necessity of dealing with single issues, point-source problems, but simultaneously maintaining a broader approach to interrelationships involving ecosystems and their components. Identification of ecoregions provides a spatial framework for assessment, research, inventory, monitoring, and management of both delimited and large areas. Applications of ecoregions should be multi-purpose and adaptable to various scales from regional to site specific (Omernik and Bailey, 1997).
The investigation of lithologic influence on woody vegetation, depending on the
23 extent of the underlying geology, could identify attributes in the geoecology on one or multiple scales. Further, geoecology through direct observation is an application for examining congruence and coincidence between geological elements and biological relationships. For example, geomorphic factors such as, regional dip of formations, slope and variations in the rate of erosion contribute to the gradational change in soil formation and the distribution of woody vegetation. In turn, this may result in a conceptual gradation between types of vegetation. Computer mapping based on geographic information systems (GIS) enable categorical maps depicting distribution of discrete or continuous attributes aligned with almost infinite data management.
Conventional map boundaries are represented by lines defined of zero width; this can be misleading in that natural boundaries such as vegetation and lithology are generally gradual, or what may be called non-zero width, ‘fuzzy’ boundaries. Zhang and Kirby
(1999) explored the merits of generating fuzzy boundaries and found that maintaining both a crisp boundary classification and deriving fuzzy boundaries offers a flexible, logical, and compact solution for data management of categorical maps and information.
Daniel Berthold-Bond (1999) argued that the elusiveness of bioregional boundaries was one of its great merits rather than a detraction in that it invites question of the purely objective literal definition of a place, which leaves out the subjective dimensions central to actual experience with a place.
In like manner, the vagueness of some geoecologic boundaries elude the purely objective study approach and, in fact, can call attention to the subjective dimensions and experiential influence of fuzzy boundaries on the geography of woody vegetation in
24 those particular places. For any given project it may be necessary to modify or expand
general procedures; due to varying characteristics or objectives in different areas,
therefore, it is difficult to follow a strictly detailed, rule-based approach that will be
applicable to all regions (Griffith et al., 1994).
Du Puy and Moat (1998) utilized GIS to map and classify vegetation, as
influenced by the underlying geology. In the context of this literature review, this
example is used as a practical application for deriving recommendations for the
conservation of biodiversity. Fieldwork indicated that distinct vegetation types occur on
different bedrock. Primary vegetation cover, produced by satellite imagery, was
classified according to its distribution on the underlying geology. The international
scientific and conservation community singled out the country of Madagascar as having
one of the richest biodiversities in the world and probably under the greatest threat for
destruction of its primary vegetation. Native vegetation cover has been stripped from
over 80% of the island. Histograms were constructed to show the remaining extent of
primary vegetation, and recommendations supported by statistical analysis were made
for conservation of the phyto-diveristy. Recommendations were made that reserves be
established to protect the greatest possible diversity of species and that some species distribution coincided with the geological patterns. Traditional reserve boundaries were generally recognized by the local inhabitants; a final recommendation was made for adequate funding and personnel, where ever possible, to upgrade and protect already existing areas.
This literature review examines the various early attempts to explain the distribution of grass, forbs and browse vegetation. Geologists noted the relationship for
25 certain types of vegetation with geomorphic features, and demanded that natural
physiographic boundaries be described for educational and economic work as early as
1916. By 1976 interest had shifted from specific studies to a more regional approach as
interest in ecology as a methodology for management strategies and resource planning.
Du Puy and Moat (1998) used computer technology further expanded the ability of
ecologists to study ecology, but introduced problems by analyzing the reality of
gradational changes in lithologic, pedologic, and vegetative land-cover categories.
Major corroborators such as Bailey (1983-86) and Omernik (1987and 1997) recognized the need to map ecosystems and sub-systems that are associations of interacting abiotic and biotic features, and recognized the various scales of ecosystems. Smaller
divisions within major ecosystems should be recognized by landforms such as, relief,
topography and geologic substrate, thus providing the best means of identifying ecosystems on a local level. Appropriately sized and scaled ecosystems provide environmental managers effective information for different management-conservation problems. Recognition of relationships between organisms and their environments within distinctive geological areas can be utilized in conservation planning. Discrete systems resulting from the interplay of geologic, hydrologic, atmospheric, biotic, geomorphic, and other factors may have varying degrees of impact upon the environment of distribution for oak trees.
26 CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
A georegion is not demarcated by county, state or political boundaries; however,
for the sake of reducing the size of the database manageable with current computing
power, this study is limited to Choctaw County, Oklahoma, and Coke and Denton
Counties of Texas. Data used in the study include: climate, upland and lowland oak
landcover, soil orders and bedrock lithology of the geologic formations. The three
counties were chosen because they have similar bedrock and large variations in rainfall.
Table 3.1 provides an all county comparison of general statistics.
Table 3.1: All County Statistics
All County Statistics Coke Choctaw Denton Area 911 sq. mi 801 sq. mi 954.63 sq. mi Max. Elevation 2608 ft 650 ft 970 ft Min. Elevation 1758 ft 390 ft 440 ft Average Elevation 2323 ft 500 ft 662 ft Relief 850 ft 260 ft 530 ft Average Temperature 66 F 63.1 F 64 F Average Annual Rainfall 21.2 47.2 33.5 in. Record High Temp 111 °F 110 °F 113 °F Record Low Temp -2 °F -3 °F -3 °F Formations Exposed on surface 19 13 18 Lithologic Types expressed on 7 13 9 surface
Initially, county boundary maps were imported from (ERSI) Environmental Systems
Research Institute, Inc., and modified using ArcMap to created boundaries for each of
the three counties. Boundary maps serve as the base map for subsequent map and data file overlays. ESRI’s ArcGis and ArcMap was used to create surface geology maps
27 of the three counties examined in this project. The Denton County geologic map of
Texas (Figure 3.1) was created in ArcGIS by modifying a Texas Natural Resources
Information System (TNRIS) map with digitized information taken from a USGS
Geologic Atlas of Texas (GAT), Sherman Sheet 1967 Revised 1991 (McGowen et al.,
1991). The Choctaw County, Oklahoma geologic map was modified from the Oklahoma
Geological Survey (Figure 3.2).
Figure 3.1: Denton County geologic map, created 2 January 2007, modified from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Sherman Sheet, Revised, 1991. Projection: GCS_North_American. Datum: D_North American_1983.
28
Figure 3.2: Choctaw County geologic map, created 18 March 2007, modified from Huffman (1975) the Oklahoma Geological Survey. Projection: GCS_North_American. Datum: D_North American_1983.
Figure 3.3 the geologic map of Coke County, Texas, was digitized from the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality, 15-minute digital GAT Quads (Estepp, 2004).
The Coke County, Texas GAT Quads were not properly merged therefore the digital map used in this research was wholly digitized by the author using parts of the
Northwest and Southwest Quads as a template. Then the digitized map was edited using the Geologic Atlas of Texas Big Spring and Sherman Sheets (Barnes, 1974-
1975). Every map created for this project was ‘defined’ and ‘projected’ to make sure that map projections for each county data set are equivalent.
29
Figure 3.3: Coke County geologic map, created 19 March 2007, modified from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Revised, 1991. Projection: GCS_North_American. Datum: D_North American_1983.
The second step was to create a model to prepare sets of county data for processing landcover. For example, Denton County data for landcover, ‘Txlcg’, was projected in North_American_1983_Albers, ERSI Grid, raster format, 30x30 meter cell size with 63 landcover types for the entire state of Texas. However, the Denton County
30 boundary outline was a vector file projected in NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_14N. An ArcMap
process called ‘Extract by Mask’ was used to clip out the information concerning only
Denton County (Figure 3.4).
Figure 3.4: Denton County map of oak distribution, created 6 June 2007, modified from the Texas Natural Resources Information System 2005. Projection: GCS_North_American. Datum: D_North American_1983.
The ‘Extract by Mask’ process generated a raster file that was next converted into a polygon in an Arc toolbox conversion tool, called Raster to Polygon. Using ArcToolbox’s
‘Define’ and ‘Project’ the shapefile was projected into NAD_1983_Albers for further
31 processing (Figure 3.5). The above process was repeated for Coke County (Figure 3.6) and Choctaw County (Figure 3.7). The 30 meter projection maps were then overlain on the county boundary maps, using GIS ArcMap as an analytical tool, to generate the data necessary to address the dissertation questions.
Import County outline, Precipitation, Temperature, Geology, Soils and Oak Vegetation for each county.
If If projections projections do not match. match
Use respective County outline Define and then project into to clip all other shapefiles. common coordinate system.
Identify geologic formations for each county and calculate area for each formation. Identify soils and group into soil order for each county, then calculate area for each soil order. Identify Oak vegetation type and group all others into separate categories. Calculate area for oak vegetation type. Calculate area for oak groupings. Calculate average annual temperature for each county. Calculate average annual rainfall for each county.
Soil Order versus Oak For each Landcover county select Select Geology and overlay Geology versus Oak with, soils, Landcover and oak landcover.
Statistics
Figure 3.5: Simplified flow chart for manipulation of data in Arc GIS.
32
Figure 3.6: Coke County, Texas oak landcover distribution created 11 March 2007, modified from Texas Natural Resources information System 2005, Projection: GCS_North_American_1983. Datum: D_North_American_1983.
Figure 3.7: Choctaw County, Oklahoma oak landcover distribution created 23 March 2007, modified from Oklahoma GAP Soil Data, 2005. Projection: CGCS_North_American_1983. Datum: D_North_American_1983.
33 In the third step, maps were created depicting the soil orders in each county. The
process described above was repeated, except the soils data for Denton (Figure 3.8) and Coke Counties (Figure 3.9) were taken from STATSGO, 1994 and projected into
D_North_American_1983. Choctaw County soil data were extracted from the Oklahoma
Soil Survey, 1979 and modified to fit the NAD_1983_Ablers county boundary (Figure
3.10).
Figure 3.8: Denton County, Texas soil order, created 2 March 2007, modified from STATSGO 1994. Projection: GCS_North_American_1983. Datum: D_North_American_1983.
34 Figure 3.9: Coke County, Texas soil orders, created 15 February 2007, modified from STATSGO 1994. Projection: GCS_North_American_1983. Datum: D_North_American_1983.
Figure 3.10: Choctaw County, Oklahoma soil orders, created 25 February 2007, modified from Oklahoma Soil Survey, 1979. Projection: GCS_North_American_1983. Datum: D_North_American_1983.
35 For the fourth step, maps were created from climate data to show the range of
temperature and precipitation over the area of the oak distribution. From the
generated showing precipitation for the three counties ranging from 17.51 to 55.00 in/yr.
Choctaw, Denton and Coke Counties were selected from ESRI United States county boundary map, and a GIS tool, Clip, was used to overlay the precipitation view on the
location reference (Figure 3.11). Data from the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) was used to construct precipitation tables for each county (Tables A1, A2 and A3).
Figure 3.11: Annual precipitation distribution map, in inches, of Choctaw County, Oklahoma, Denton and Coke County, Texas. Modified from www.Geographynetwork.com/atlas-precititation, 2004. Projection: GCS_North_American_1983. Datum: D-North_American_1983.
36 From Geographynetwork.com/ERSI_Temp_Yr, a map of the temperature distribution, in degrees Fahrenheit, for the three counties was constructed. Choctaw, Denton and Coke
Counties were selected from the ESRI United States county boundary map and ‘clip’ was used to extract temperature data for overlay on the county location map (Figure
3.12). Data from the (NCDC) was used to construct temperature tables for each of the
three counties (Tables A4, A5 and A6). Annual temperature and precipitation was
compared to the number of species in each of the counties. A discussion of the
observations is presented in chapter 4.
Figure 3.12: Annual temperature averages and distributions for Choctaw County, Oklahoma, Denton and Coke County, Texas in Fahrenheit, modified from Geographynetwork_ERSI_Temp_Yr, 12 February 2007, Projection: GCS_North_American_1983. Datum: D_North_American_1983.
37 Finally, a GIS layer of the distribution of landcover for the three counties was overlain on
the formations, soils, and base maps. A model was generated to do the repetitive
processing of calculating the total area of oaks and/or landcover on each geologic
formation. In ArcMap, the attribute table for Denton County geologic formation shapefile
(Figure 3.1) was opened and a formation was selected. Next the selected formation
data was exported using ‘Data Export’ and a new shapefile was created for the selected formation. Then using ArcToolbox > Analysis Tools > Clip, the input feature
Denton_County_Landcover shapefile (Figure 3.4) was clipped using the
Denton_County_Geologic formation shapefile. The newly created shapefile of all land cover on the formation was processed using ArcToolbox > DataManagement Tools >
Generalization > Dissolve, which aggregates all features on specified attributes, in this case ‘Gridcode’. ArcToolbox > Spatial Statistics > Tools > Utilities < Calculate Area, was used to calculate the area of each landcover type within the area of the selected formation. In the attribute table for the geologic formation versus landcover under
Options’, two new fields were created for square kilometers (Sq_Km) and square miles
(Sq_Mi). From the Attribute Table > Calculate Values, the new fields were populated with both square kilometer and miles for each landcover type on the respective formation. Finally, using Attribute Table > Options > Export, the table was exported to
Excel for final processing and the creation of the frequency tables for the geologic formation versus land cover (Figure 3.13). This process was repeated for each of the 18 geologic formations in Denton County. The same procedure as described above was used to process both Choctaw and Coke Counties.
38 Open county geology attribute Export data and Select table. create new file formation. called formation.
Dissolve by Clip with Calculate Gridcode. county area boundary
Select options and create Export to In Excel generate two new fields Sq_Km Excel. frequency tables of and Sq_Mi. percent distribution of oak landcover on each county formation.
Figure 3.13: GIS model for calculating total area of oak landcover on each geologic formation for Choctaw County Oklahoma, and Denton and Coke Counties, Texas.
Attribute tables for the map distribution of landcover on the three counties were edited to remove as much non-oak associated data as possible. Spatial intersection of the oak species distribution with the formation and other layers representing other environmental variables (geologic formation, temperature, precipitation, and soil) were utilized to develop tables and maps of the distribution of the landcover. Spatial analysis in ESRI's ARCMap utilized the overlays of the various data sets to generate frequency tables. The tables were generated as follows for each of the three counties: geologic formation versus landcover, or the percentage of oak trees on each formation, and soil order versus landcover. Frequency table data were analyzed using Canoco 4.5
Correlation Analysis. The test is an observation of the patterns of associations in the natural environment (Ter Braak and P. Smilauer, 2002).
39 The objective of the methodology is to define the lithologic limits where bedrock
exerts an influence on the distribution of the oak species. Oak trees are now growing in
different geographic locations than in the past 5000 years, and on a wider variety of lithologic formations (Adams, 2007). Multivariate statistical techniques are used to explore the patterns of variation within lithologic depositional types, thereby implying a cause/effect relationship. With this technique we gain insight into the lithologic preference(s) by Quercus, and the possible connections with soil orders and/or bedrock lithology.
Accuracy of GAP Data
Oklahoma GAP adheres to the guidelines provided by the National Gap analysis
Program (GAP). GAP provides a standardized method and format which allows data to be edge-matched as each state completes its project. The classification system used by
Oklahoma GAP is based on the structural characteristics of vegetation derived by
Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberger and adopted by the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). For the Oklahoma GAP, the above classification system was modified to conform to the National Vegetation Classification
System (NVCS) using a classification of the vegetation of Oklahoma by Sue Glenn and
Bruce Hoagland of the Oklahoma National Heritage Inventory (Fisher and Gregory,
2001). Table 3.2 is a reproduction of the GAP,s summary of error results. Forests and other landcover types had the highest overall accuracy at 78%; woodlands at (22%) were most often misclassified as forests or other land cover types. Misclassifications
40 were most likely the result of structural differences between the landcover types which
are often difficult to discern from satellite imagery (Fisher and Gregory, 2001).
Table 3.2: Accuracy Results of the USGS GAP Analysis Program Expected Mapped Forest Woodland Shrubland Herbaceous Other N Forest 78.5% 2.6% 0.6% 4.1% 14.3% 1518 Woodland 37.4% 22.1% 0.8% 14.2% 25.5% 605 Shrubland 0.7% 0.0% 53.4% 43.3% 2.6% 307 Herbaceous 8.5% 5.1% 7.5% 56.4% 22.5% 1140 Other 4.5% 0.9% 1.1% 8.7% 84.8% 1045 4615
Source: Fisher, William L., and Mark S. Gregory. 2001. The Oklahoma Gap Analysis Project, Final Report. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma.
Over the entire state of Oklahoma 161 types (numbered 1through 161) of
landcover were identified, of which 27 types were identified in Choctaw County. Using
the attribute table data generated in GIS frequency tables created for all the landcover
types found on every formation of the county. A map showing the relative distribution of
the oak and associated species was also obtained by using ArcMap to group the
landcover code numbers that identified types of oak and their associated vegetation.
For the purposes of this study the oaks were grouped into three general categories
hereafter know as: upland oaks, lowland oaks, and the needle-leaf evergreen and oak.
For example code 19 identifies the Eastern Cross Timbers, but code 22 has both white
oak and hickory forests. Table 3.3 shows the original code and the subsequent grouping
into the three general groups. Non-oak species were eliminated.
41 Table 3.3: Example of Landcover Regrouping for GIS Analysis in Choctaw, Oklahoma Code Landcover Regrouping 0 Other N/A 5 Shortleaf Pine Forest N/A 6 Shortleaf Pine - Oak Forests Needle-Leaf Evergreen and Oak 7 Loblolly Pine Forest N/A 8 Loblolly Pine - Oak Forest Needle-Leaf Evergreen and Oak 14 Oak - Hickory - Pine Forests Needle-Leaf Evergreen and Oak 15 Oak - Pine Forests Needle-Leaf Evergreen and Oak 16 Oak - Cedar Forests Needle-Leaf Evergreen and Oak 19 Eastern Cross Timbers Upland oak 31 East Central Bottomland Forests Lowland Oak 42 Pine - Oak Woodland Needle-Leaf Evergreen and Oak 51 Eastern Red Cedar Woodland N/A 52 Eastern Red Cedar - Oak Woodland Needle-Leaf Evergreen and Oak 56 Oak - Pine Woodland Needle-Leaf Evergreen and Oak 59 Oak Woodland Upland oak 85 Tallgrass Oak Savanna Upland oak 91 Tall Grass Prairie N/A 102 Midgrass Oak Savanna Upland oak 112 Midgrass Prairie N/A 147 Crop N/A 149 Improved / Introduced Pasture N/A 153 Residential / Industrial N/A 156 Riverine N/A 157 Lake / Reservoir N/A 158 Pond N/A 160 Loblolly Pine Forest Planted / Cultivated N/A 162 Tallgrass Cedar Savanna N/A
Texas GAP follows the National Gap Analysis Program guidelines and used the same satellite data. In Texas, 63 vegetation codes are recognized and of those 27 and
42 23 vegetation types are identified in Denton and Coke Counties respectively. Texas
GAP included the following oak and other tree species under code 22 - cold-deciduous
woodland: Buckley, bluejack, lacey, live, post, blackjack and honey mesquite. The
inclusion of mesquite in the code 22 oak grouping will tend to inflate the coverage of oak
on the calcareous formations. Mesquite grows and in large quantities on the range land
of the calcareous formations in both Coke and Denton Counties. Mesquite also grows
on the sandy formations and will be reflected in the total landcover coverage and slightly
inflate the oak distribution.
Ground truthing the approximately 2,662 square miles of the study area was not possible due to the size of the project and the inability to gain access to some private property. Therefore field observations were made along public road right-of-ways that passed through the various formations. In chapter 4 those field observation are included and address whether the percentage of landcover distribution did or did not include oaks.
Accuracy of Digital GAT Quads
The 15 minute Digital GAT Quads NW and SW were generated from Geologic of
Atlas of Texas Big Springs Sheet, 1974 and the San Angelo Sheet, 1975 produced by the Bureau of Economic Geology. These maps have been used by the U.S. Geological
Survey and U.S. Department of the Interior, and are distributed to the public. However no warranty expressed or implied is made by the Bureau of Economic Geology for the
Geologic Atlas of Texas or, for the 15 minute GAT Quads distributed by the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) with respect to the accuracy of the data
43 (TCEQ, 2004; Barnes 1974: Barnes 1975).
Accuracy of Soils Data
Soils data was modified from digital soil association maps developed by the
National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS) and distributed by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly the Soil Conservation Service. The STATSGO maps were compiled from more detailed soil survey maps. Neither the NCSS nor NRCS make any warranty, express or implied, with respect to the accuracy of the soils maps.
Geologic Setting
Choctaw County is located in the southeastern part of the state of Oklahoma and is bounded on the south by the Red River. Choctaw County is rectangular measuring approximately 18 miles north to south and 45 miles east to west. The county covers approximately 795 square miles, and has minimum and maximum elevations of 390 and
650 feet respectively. Average elevation is 500 feet above sea level and relief is 260 feet (Table 3.1).
Eighteen formations are expressed on the surface of Choctaw County,
Oklahoma. Surface geology ranges from fluvial deposition through seven distinct lithologic types (Table 3.4). Rocks exposed on out crops are sedimentary and range in age from Late Cretaceous to the Mississippian, the later are found only in the very northeastern part of the county. Regional dip of Cretaceous sediments is southward at rates of 50 to 125 feet per mile. Choctaw County sits in southeastern Oklahoma in the northern part of the dissected Gulf Coastal Plain. Topography is maturely dissected with
44 low cuestas, and long gentle slopes due to the southward homoclinal dip. The northern
part of the county has hilly topography developed on the Antlers Sandstone. Gently
rolling hills with large areas of upland prairie have developed on limestone, and thin
terraces in the central parts of the county. In the south, sediment is deeply dissected by
south flowing tributaries of the Red River. Extensive deposits of Pleistocene terraces
and Holocene alluvium cover the older sediments along Clear, Muddy, and Boggy
Creeks, and both the Kiamichi and Red Rivers (Figure 3.2).The extreme southern part
of the county along the Red River is characterized by broad expanses of level flood
plains with low terraces (Huffman et al., 1975) (Figure 3.2, Table 3.3, A1 and A4).
Table 3.4: Choctaw County, Oklahoma Formations
Choctaw County Symbol Composition Formation 1 Qal Alluvial Clastic Sand, Silt, Mudstone, Clay, 2 Qt Fluviatile Terrace Marl, Gravel 3 Kwb Woodbine Fm Sand, Clay, Marl, Shale Bennington Limestone 4 Kb Sand, Limestone Fm Bokchito Fm (Pawpaw 5 Kbp Sandstone, Clay, Marl Sandstone) 6 Kbw Bokchito Fm (Weno clay) Clay, Marl Bokchito Fm (Denton 7 Kbd Shale, Clay, Marl, Limestone Clay) Shale, Limestone, Silt, 8 Kc Caddo Fm Mudstone 9 Kk Kiamichi Fm Clay, Marl, Limestone 10 Kg Goodland Ls Limestone 11 Ka Antlers Sand Sand, Clay, Marl 12 lPwh Wildhorse Mountain Fm Sandstone, Shale 13 Mt Tenmile Creek Fm Sandstone, Shale
Source: Choctaw County, Oklahoma symbols, formations, and composition from Oklahoma Geological Survey, Bulletin 120, Geology and Mineral Resources of Choctaw County Oklahoma, and The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Geological Highway Map, Mid-Continent Region.
45 The Choctaw County, Oklahoma soil survey identifies 60 soil series, grouped into nine generalized associations. Slopes in Choctaw County vary from level to 20%. Soil areas dominated by gently sloping to moderately steep loam and sandy soils are the
Bosville-Bernow-Muskogee, Clebit-Tuskahoma, and Tenaha-Smithdale Associations.
Nearly-level to moderately steep clayey and loamy soils on upland areas characterize the Ferris-Panola and Hollywood-Swink Associations. Areas of nearly-level to gently sloping clayey, and loamy soils on Terraces and flood plains describes the Boggy-
Wrightsville, Hopco-Trinity, Roebuck-Pledger, and Whakana-Idabel-Karma (Table A7).
Soils of differing type have formed on the Southern Coastal Plains, and the Ouachita
Mountains physiographic region (Figure 3.10) (Swafford and Reasoner, 1977).
Coke County is situated in the central southwest of the state of Texas at the intersection of the Edwards Plateau, the Llano Estacado or Staked Plains, and the
North Central Plains. The county is rectangular and covers 888 square miles. Average elevation at 2,323 feet is approximately 4 times higher than Denton or Choctaw
Counties. Coke County receives the least amount of rainfall, 21.2 in/yr, of the three counties and has a subtropical continental climate with dry winters and hot, humid summers (Table A9) (Tables 3.1 and A3).
General geology expressed on the surface of Coke County is sedimentary rocks with seventeen distinct lithologic types (Table 3.5). Deposits of Quaternary alluvium and windblown sand are found along the Colorado River, which runs diagonally through the middle of the county from northwest to southeast. The Edwards Plateau once covered all of Coke County, but the Colorado River cut the Plateau carving a valley approximately 13 miles wide. Now the Edwards Plateau and the Callahan divide both
46 rise steeply to heights between 100 and 547 feet above the valley floor. Both the
Edwards Plateau and the mountains called the Callahan Divide are capped with the
Cretaceous Segovia and Fort Terrett Limestone. The valley has a broad flat bottomland,
deeply incised by the tributary streams and the Colorado River. A 'new valley' has been
carved in the old valley by the currents of the Colorado River. Regional dip is southeast
at rates of 8 to 12 feet per mile (Figure 3.3) (Beede, J.W., and W. P. Bentley, 1918;
Barnes, 1974; Barnes, 1974-1975).
Table 3.5: Formation Composition of Coke County, Texas
Sym Coke County Formation Composition 1 Qal Alluvial Clastic 2 Qs Windblown Sand Sand 3 Qau Quaternary Deposits Undivided Caliche, Silt, Mudstone 4 Qu Pleistocene Surficial Deposits Caliche 5 Qt Fluviatile Terrace Deposits Gravel, Sand, Silt, Mudstone 6 Qp Playa Deposits Clay, Marl, Silt, Mudstone, Sand Seymour Fm and Quaternary 7 Qao Conglomerate, Chert, Silt, Mudstone Deposits 8 Qcs Windblown Cover Sand Sand Sand, Silt, Mudstone, Clay, Marl, 9 To Ogallala Fm Gravel 10 Kecw Edwards Group Undivided 11 Ks Segovia Fm Limestone, Chert, Dolomite 12 Kft Fort Terrett Fm Limestone, Chert, Dolomite, Shale 13 Ka Antlers Sand Sand, Clay, Marl 14 TRd Dockum Sand, Clay, Marl, Shale, Conglomerate 15 Pq Quartermaster Fm Shale, Silt, Mudstone, Sand, Gypsum, 16 Pwb White Horse/Cloud Chief/Blaine Gypsum, Sandstone, shale 17 Pwh White Horse/Cloud Chief Undivided Gypsum, Sandstone, Dolomite 18 Pb Blaine Fm Shale, Sandstone, Gypsum, Dolomite 19 Psa San Angelo 20 Pcf Clear Fork
Source: Coke County, Texas symbols, formations, and composition from the Bureau of Economic Geology, Geologic Atlas of Texas, Big Spring, 1974, and San Angelo 1975 sheets.
47 Soils in Coke County, Texas have formed on the Rolling Red Plains and the
Edwards Plateau. The Colorado River provides most of the drainage through the middle of the county with Oak Creek draining the northeast corner, while the North Concho
River crosses and drains the extreme southwestern corner. All drainage is in a southeasterly direction and average slopes ranges from level to 20%. The general soils map of the county lists 38 soil series and 6 associations (Table A-9). First, the
Kimbrough-Olton-Mereta associations are shallow to deep, loamy, calcareous to noncalcareous soils formed on outwash plains. Second the shallow, clayey, calcareous soils that have formed on the limestone hills are the Tarrant associations. Olton-Miles associations are deep, noncalcareous loamy soils overlying the material of the outwash plains are third. The fourth association is the Cobb-Cash, shallow to moderately deep, loamy, noncalcareous soils that form over limestone. Fifth is the Miles-Colorado association of deep calcareous and noncalcareous loamy soils on terraces and bottomlands. Finally the Rivoli-Brownfield association is deep, noncalcareous sandy soils (Barnhill, 1974) (Figure 3.9).
Located in the north central part of the state of Texas, Denton County is bounded on the north by Cooke and Grayson Counties; Wise County to the west, Collin County forms the eastern boundary, and Dallas and Tarrant form the southern boundary. The
County covers approximately 966.03 square miles (Table 3.1). Pilot Knob is traditionally considered to be the highest elevation in Denton County at 838 ft., however the Denton
County website landmark viewer shows a hill 2.5 miles south of the town of Slidell, on the Denton-Wise County line topping out at 970 feet. Denton County has a, warm, continental to subtropical climate with average annual rainfall of 33.5 inches and
48 average temperature of 64oF (Tables A2 and A5).
The geology of Denton County is divided into the Upper Cretaceous or Gulf
Series and Lower Cretaceous or Comanchean Series, by a hiatus between the
Woodbine and Grayson formations. W. M. Winton used the customary approach of dividing the lower cretaceous into three divisions, youngest to oldest respectively,
Washita, Frederickburg and Trinity (Winton, W. M., 1925). Table 3.6 lists the 16 formations identifiable in Denton County. Formations are relatively thin with thickness ranging from 20 feet for the Mainstreet Limestone to 400 feet in the Eagleford Shale.
Table 3.6: Formation Composition of Denton County, Texas Symbol Denton County Formation Composition 1 Qal Alluvial Sand, Silt, Mudstone, Clay, Marl, Gravel Sand, Gravel, Silt, Mudstone, 2 Qt Fluviatile Terrace Deposits Calcareous 3 Qu Surficial Deposits Undivided Sand, Clay, Marl, Silt, Mudstone, Gravel 4 Kau Austin Chalk Limestone, Clay, Marl 5 Kef Eagleford Group Shale, Limestone, Sandstone Woodbine Fm including the Sandstone, Shale, Silt, Mudstone, 6 Kwb Dexter Limestone 7 Kgm Grayson Marl Marl, Clay, Limestone, Sand 8 Kgm Mainstreet Ls Limestone, Marl 9 Kpp Pawpaw Sandstone, Sandy clay 10 Kwe Weno Ls Marl, Limestone 11 Kd Denton Clay Clay, Limestone, Shale, Marl Bokchito Formation Sandstone, Clay, Marl, Shale, 12 Kpd Undivided(Kpp, Kwe, Kd) Limestone 13 Kfw Fort Worth Fm Limestone, Marl, Clay 14 Kdc Duck Creek Ls Marl, Limestone, Clay Caddo Formation Undivided(Kfw, 15 Kc Limestone, Marl, Clay Kdc) 16 Kki Kiamichi Marl, Limestone, Shale, Sand 17 Kgw Goodland/Walnut Ls Limestone, Clay 18 Ka Antlers (Trinity-Paluxy) Sandstone, Clay, Conglomerate
Source: Denton County, Texas symbols, formations, and composition from the Bureau of Economic Geology, Geologic Atlas of Texas Sherman sheet, revised 1991.
49 The structural geology of the County consist of primarily flat lying beds of calcareous
marls, clays and sandstone, with a regional dip of 1 to 3 degrees toward the east- southeast. The gently dipping strata form a series of low cuestas having a northeast-
southwest strike. With the exception of the Alluvial and Fluviatile Quaternary deposits,
the lowest member of the Austin Chalk, the Ector, is the youngest Cretaceous age
formation in the county and crops out in the very southeast corner of Denton County.
West of the Austin Chalk is the valley forming Eagleford Shale. Below the Eagleford is
the oldest of the Gulf series, the Woodbine sand, which sits unconformably on the
Grayson Marl. The general geology is of Cretaceous age, marine, sedimentary
deposition with 8 distinctive lithologic types having surface expression (Figure 3.1).
Denton soils have formed on the Blackland Prairie, Cross Timber, and Grand
Prairie. Eighty-five soils series are grouped into 10 associations on the soil survey of
Denton County, Texas, general soil map (Table A9). Birome-Gasil-Gallisburg is
moderately deep and deep soils on upland savannahs. Five associations: Sanger-
Wilson, Branyon-Burleson-Heiden, Altoga-Vertel-Ferris, Slidell-Sanger, and Ponder-
Lindale are grouped for the moderately deep and deep soils on upland prairies. The
Frio-Ovan is the deep soils on bottomlands. Finally, the Aledo-Somervell, and Houston
Black-Stephen are the very shallow to deep soils on upland prairies (Figure 3.8).
Alkaline soils created by the weathering of upper and lower Cretaceous limestone favor
grasses, while the soils that formed over iron rich sandstones favor hardwoods. Denton
County can be divided, from east to west into the Blackland Prairie, Post Oak belt and
Grand Prairie, according to the character of the underlying bedrock, rather than being
dominantly influenced by climate.
50 Distribution of Quercus in Coke, Denton and Choctaw Counties
Oaks are a member of the beech family and related to the chestnut. Nearly all oaks can be placed in either the white or black oak group. Approximately 136 species are identified worldwide; many oaks share multiple identities, and Table A10 lists 83.
There are estimated to be between 50 and 75 species in the United States, and 25 of the 36 species found in Texas and Oklahoma can be found in Coke, Denton and
Choctaw Counties. Choctaw County, Oklahoma has 19 species while Denton and Coke
Counties have 13 and six respectively (Figures 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6) (Zim and Martin,
1956).
Figures 3.1 – 3.4 and 3.6 – 3.10, and their associated data tables, are used to generate the frequency tables for the distribution of oaks on the soil orders and bedrock.
Statistical analyses are presented in chapter 4. Also the figures provide an excellent visual portrayal of the patterns of oak distribution when the oak layer is overlain on either the soil orders or bedrock geology. Definite patterns can be seen between the siliceous formations and oak distributions. These patterns will be discussed further in chapter 4.
In Choctaw County lowland oaks appear to be concentrated on the Woodbine
Sandstone, Antlers Sandstone and along the terraces and valleys carved by the streams and rivers that incise the county. Upland oaks have two areas of concentrations. Upland pine-hickory-cedar-oak associations are found on the Caddo, and in the northeastern part of the county where the Mississippian age Jackfork inliers on the Antlers Sandstone form rugged ridges. Upland oak-with-pine-hickory-cedar associations are more heavily distributed on the Antlers Sandstone and in the
51 northwestern part of the county. The eastern Cross Timbers which may be upland or lowland are distributed across the Woodbine, Antlers, and Kiamichi formations (Figures
3.2 – 3.4, 3.6 and 3.7). Overlaying the oaks on the soil orders indicates the highest association of upland oaks on the Ultisols in the northeast and on the Vertisols (Figures
3.7 – 3.10).
Overlaying Figures 3.3, 3.6 and 3.9 for Coke County provide graphic representation of the upland oaks that grow on the outcrops of the Antlers Sandstone and Edwards Group. Precipitation falling on the Edwards Plateau infiltrates down to the
Antlers Sandstone where it emerges to form springs high on the valley walls, providing moisture for the oaks. Figure 3.6 shows the lowland oaks having a more diverse distribution in the Colorado River valley and on top of the Edwards Plateau. Erosion of sandy formation from the rim of the Edwards Plateau and the subsequent deposition of the sands in various locations along the floor of the Colorado River Valley created locations suitable for the growth of oaks on bedrock lithology that would not normally be conducive to oaks. Coke County is west of the traditional boundary of the Western
Cross timbers, but supports large quantities of both Post and Blackjack oak. The soils in
Coke County support the most uniformly divided oak coverage area for the three counties at approximately 25-31% per order, including the Mollisols which cover 78.7% of the county and support 29.9% oak distribution.
Denton County has the largest population density, extensive horse ranching, and agricultural development. Oaks in Denton have been subjected to more cultural activity than the other two counties. Figure 3.4 shows the development of cropland (24.83%) and urbanization (13.28%) on the Woodbine Sandstone, the formation traditionally
52 associated with the Eastern Cross Timbers (A15). An east west traverse across North
Central Texas and Denton County displays alternating belts of prairies and hardwoods.
Clear, Denton and Hickory Creeks are the three major streams that transect the Fort
Worth Prairie. Along the stream valleys are gallery forests of oaks, hickory, pecan and pine. Also on the Prairie are outliers of Woodbine Sandstone, supporting growth of blackjack and post oaks (Figure 3.4).
53 CHAPTER 4
DATA PREPARATION AND ANALYSIS
Based on the total area of the three research counties, Denton and Coke, Texas and Choctaw, Oklahoma, approximately 2,661.8 square miles of surface geology and soils were analyzed for the distribution of oaks (Quercus). Starting with the
NAD_1983_Albers projection geologic map, the area of each geologic formation in each of the three counties was identified. Twenty and 17 formations respectively, have surface expression in Coke and Denton County, Texas. Eighteen formations are identified in Choctaw, County Oklahoma. In all three counties some formations are undivided (Table 4.1). Area covered by water is included in the geologic formation tables to retain the total county area. Due to constantly changing lake levels in all counties, oak trees and other vegetation can be found within the perimeter that marks maximum pool elevation.
Tables 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 present a description of composition for each formation, estimated thickness, and surface area in both square kilometers and square miles for
Denton, Coke, and Choctaw Counties. Total areas for each of the three counties on the tables differ slightly from the official areas stated in Table 3.1. Differences in areas between county boundary, geology, soils order and land cover are due to a combination of: registration errors when converting data sets to the same projection, digitizing errors, and conversions between units of measurements when importing and manipulating data in ArcGIS. Conversion and registration errors ranged from 0.003 to -0.005% (Table 4.5).
54 Table 4.1: Generalized Table of Formations in Denton, Coke, and Choctaw Counties
Period Sym Coke Formation Sym Denton Formation Sym Choctaw Formation Quaternary Qal Alluvial Qal Alluvial Qal Alluvial Quaternary Qs Windblown Sand Qt1 Fluviatile Terrace Quaternary Qau Quaternary Deposits Undivided Qt2 Fluviatile Terrace Quaternary Qcs Pleistocene Surficial Deposits Undivided Qt3 Fluviatile Terrace Quaternary Qt Fluviatile Terrace Deposits Qt Fluviatile Qt4 Fluviatile Terrace Quaternary Qu Surficial Deposits Undivided Quaternary Qp Playa Deposits Seymour Formation and other Quaternary Quaternary Qao Deposits Quaternary Qcs Windblown Sand Cover Tertiary To Ogallala Formation Cretaceous Kecw Edwards Group Undivided (Ks, Kft) Cretaceous Ks Segovia Formation Kau Austin Chalk Cretaceous Kft Fort Terrett Formation Kef Eagleford Group Cretaceous Kwb Woodbine Fm Kwb Woodbine FM Cretaceous Kgm Grayson Marl Kb Bennington Limestone FM Bokchito FM (Pawpaw Cretaceous Kgm Mainstreet Ls Kbp Sandstone) Cretaceous Kpp Pawpaw Kbm Bokchito (McNutt Limestone) Cretaceous Kwe Weno Kbw Bokchito Fm (Weno clay) Cretaceous Kd Denton Clay Kbs Bokchito (Soper) Cretaceous Kfw Fort Worth Fm Kbd Bokchito FM (Denton Clay) Cretaceous Kdc Duck Creek Ls Kc Caddo Fm Cretaceous Kki Kiamichi Kk Kiamichi FM Cretaceous Kgw Goodland Ls Kg Goodland LS Cretaceous Kgw Walnut Clay Cretaceous Ka Antlers Sand Ka Antlers (Trinity-Paluxy) Ka Antlers Triassic TRd Dockum Group Pennsylvanian Pq Quartermaster Formation lPwh Wildhorse Mountain FM Whitehorse Ss/Cloud Chief/Blaine Formation Pennsylvanian Pwb Undivided Pennsylvanian Pwh Whitehorse Sandstone, Cloud Chief Undivided Pennsylvanian Pb Blaine Formation Pennsylvanian Psa San Angelo Pennsylvanian Pcf Clear Fork Group Mississippian Mt Tenmile Creek FM
55 Table 4.2: Coke County, Texas Geologic Formations Exposed on the Surface, Symbols, Compositional Descriptions, Estimated Thickness and Surface Area in Square Kilometers and Square Miles Formation Sym Description Thickness (ft) Km2 Mi2 Clay, Sand, silt, conglomerate of limestone and chert Alluvium Qal Thin 97.63 37.69 cobbles Windblown Sand Qs Sand and silt Thin 37.25 14.38 Quaternary Deposits Undivided Qau Caliche and silt Thin 140.32 54.18 Pleistocene Surficial Deposits Qu Sand, clay, caliche, and gravel Thin 20.64 7.97 Undivided Fluviatile Terrace Deposits Qt Gravel, sand, silt and caliche Thin 120.50 46.52 Playa Deposits Qp Clay, silt, and sandy Thin 4.84 1.87 Seymour Formation and other Boulders, cobbles, and pebbles of limestone and chert, Qao 5 to 40 173.28 66.90 Quaternary Deposits some silt Windblown Cover Sand Qcs Sand, silt, caliche 15± 5.68 2.19 Ogallala Formation To Sand, silt, clay and gravel, capped by caliche 25± 2.39 0.92 Edwards Group Undivided (Ks, Kft) Kecw Cherty limestone and dolomite 625 to 665 79.84 30.83 Segovia Formation Ks Cherty limestone and dolomite 300± 139.54 53.88 Fort Terrett Kft Cherty limestone and dolomite 120 to 140 326.75 126.16 Sand, sandstone, conglomerate, siltstone, and local Antlers Sand Ka 90 to 100 172.25 66.51 quartzite Dockum Group TRd Sandstone, clay, shale, and conglomerate 150-200 28.43 10.98 Shale, siltstone, sandstone, gypsum, and dolomite Quartermaster Formation IPq 450± 90.59 34.98 interbedded Whitehorse Sandstone, Cloud Chief Gypsum and Blaine Formation IPwb See Pwh and Pb 1000 to 1075 9.08 3.51 Undivided Whitehorse Sandstone, Cloud Chief Sandstone, sand shale, local conglomerate, gypsum, IPwh 850 to 900 384.97 148.64 Undivided selenite, and dolomite interbedded Shale, sandstone, gypsum, selenite and dolomite Blaine Formation IPb 150 to 175 107.75 41.60 interbedded San Angelo IPsa Sandstone, shale, and conglomerate 125 to 200 236.91 91.47 Clear Fork Group IPcf Shale, dolomite and sandy 750± 120.41 46.49 Water Water 67.86 26.20 Total Area 2366.91 913.87
56 Table 4.3: Denton County, Texas Formations Exposed on the Surface, Symbols, Formation Compositions, and Formation Thickness in Square Kilometers and Square Miles Formation Sym Description Thickness (ft)Km2 Mi2 Alluvial Qal Sand, silt, clay, and gravel 30 222.80 86.02 Fluviatile Terrace Deposits Qt Quarts, gravel, sand, silt, and calcareous Thin 221.030 85.34 Surficial Deposits Undivided Qu Sand, clay, silt, and gravel Thin 95.23 36.77 Austin Chalk Kau Calcareous, clay, and marl 600 16.580 6.40 Eagleford Shale Formation Kef Shale, calcareous, and sandstone 300 to 400 212.04 81.87 Woodbine Kwb Sandstone, shale, silt and calcareous 270 to 390 571.49 220.65 Dexter (member of Woodbine) Kwd Sandstone, silt, and calcareous 100 to 140 1.30 0.50 Grayson Marl and Main Street Kgm Marl, limestone, and sand 15 to 60 123.73 47.77 Limestone Pawpaw Formation Kpp Sandstone and sandy clay 25 to 60 6.27 2.42 Weno Limestone Kwe Marl, and limestone 70 to 135 0.13 0.05 Denton Clay Kd Clay, calcareous, shale, and marl 45± 12.59 4.86 Bochito Formation Undivided in OK Kpd Sandstone, clay, marl, shale, calcareous 150 to200 213.78 82.54 (Kpp, Kwe,Kd) Fort Worth Limestone Kfw Limestone, and marl 35± 56.05 21.64 Duck Creek Formation Kdc Marl, limestone, and clay 100± 32.25 12.45 Caddo Formation Undivided in OK. Kc Limestone, marl, and clay 135± 458.20 176.91 (Kfw,Kdc) Kiamichi Formation Kki Marl, limestone, shale, and sand 20 to 50 21.21 8.19 Goodland Limestone and Walnut Clay Kgw Limestone, and clay 13 to 20 29.47 11.38 Undivided Antler Sand Kau Sand, clay, and conglomerate 500 to 650 3.16 1.22 Water 172.03 66.42 Total Area 2469.34953.41
57 Table 4.4: Choctaw County, Oklahoma Formations Expressed on the Surface, Names, Symbols, Compositions of Each Formation, Estimated Thickness and Area in Square Kilometers and Square Miles Formation Symbol Description Thickness (ft) Km2 Mi2 Alluvial Qal Clay, sand, and silt 20 to 30 224.58 86.71 Terrace Deposits Qt Sand, silt, clay, and gravel 90 to 120 271.59 104.86 Woodbine Formation Kwb Sandstone, sand, and shale 300 to 400 278.92 107.69 Bennington Limestone Kb Sandy limestone 0 to 18 7.54 2.91 Pawpaw Sandstone/Bokchito Kbp Sandstone and some clay 35± 114.17 44.08 Kbw Weno/Soper/Bokchito Shale and sandstone 2 to 3 91.38 35.28 Kbs Denton Clay/Bokchito Kbd Shale and limestone 45 to65 95 36.68 Shale, limestone and silty Caddo Formation Kc 140 to 150 205.7 79.42 limestone Kiamichi Formation Kk Shale, clay and limestone 28 to 33 148.98 57.52 Goodland Limestone Kg Limestone 26 to 55 72.73 28.08 Antlers Sandstone Ka Sandstone, sand and some clay 200 to 300 469.18 181.15 IPwu Quartz sandstone, sand, and Wildhorse Mountain/Jackfork Group 2000+ 18.65 7.2 IPwp shale Tenmile Creek Formation/Stanley Mt Sandstone ? 0.44 0.17 Water 66.15 25.54 Total Area 2065.01797.29
58 Table 4.5: County Statistics for Area
Coke ChoctawDenton Official Area 911.00 801.00 954.63 GIS Geologic Area 913.87 797.29 953.41 GIS Soil Order Area 910.19 796.65 957.06 GIS Landcover Area 910.80 797.29 953.71 Geologic area difference 2.87 -3.71 -1.22 Soil Order area difference -0.81 -4.35 2.43 Landcover area difference -0.20 -3.71 -0.92 Geologic error % 0.003 -0.005 -0.001 Soil Order error % -0.001 -0.005 0.003 Landcover error % -0.0002 -0.005 -0.001
Note: In square miles; areas of each county based on the individual data sets for each county.
Of particular interest in Denton and Choctaw Counties are the compositions found in the transition environments of the Woodbine, Pawpaw and Antlers sandstones.
These slightly acidic quartz and limonite rich sandy formations are classically associated with the Eastern Cross Timbers, as well as other stands of mixed forest dominated by oak coverage. Winton (1925) described the area as heavily wooded exposures of Woodbine know as the Eastern Cross Timbers. GIS data from this research for Denton County indicate the Woodbine, Pawpaw and Antlers formations cover approximately 23.5% of the surface and crop out on approximately 220.6, 2.4 and
1.2 square miles of the surface respectively. In Choctaw Oklahoma the same three formations cover approximately 41.7% of the county. The formations have surface expression as follows: Woodbine 107.6, the Pawpaw 44.1 and the Antlers 181.2 square miles.
59 One of the formations associated with both the Eastern and Western Cross
Timbers, the Antlers Sand crops out in Coke County. However, the oaks in Coke
County are not classified as belonging to the Western Cross Timbers. Nevertheless
sandy formations such as the Edwards, Dockum and Quartermaster support quantities
of oaks, and the entire county supports approximately a 30.9% distribution (Table 4.6).
Tables 4.7, 4.8, and 4.9 present the formation, soil composition, soil order by
relative percentage, for each of the three counties. Compositional ratios for each
formation of the Texas Counties were estimated based on the Bureau of Economic
Geology fact sheet for the Geologic Atlas of Texas, San Angelo 1974 and Sherman
1991 sheet. Ratios of lithologic composition for Choctaw County were derived from
Huffman et al. (1975). Traditionally, the first mentioned lithologic composition on the
legend description is the most prevalent throughout the formation, and each successive composition identified is respectively of a lesser abundance (Compton, 1962). The
actual percentages are not specifically stated. For example, the alluvial deposition on a
legend describes the formation as containing sand, silt, clay and conglomerate.
Approximately 20 years of personal field experience in and around Denton County was drawn on to corroborate the lithologic descriptions provided in the Sherman sheets and to create Tables 4.7, 4.8, and 4.9 the four above listed compositions would constitute the accepted content of the whole formation, with sand ranked as most prevalent at 40, silt at 30, clay 20 and conglomerate 10 for a total of 100. Therefore the numbers in the tables present the relative ranking of each particular type of bedrock material present and not an actual percentage, while the ultimate composition of a formation is the result of each location’s paleodepositional environment, with variations from site to site.
60 Table 4.6: Coke County, Texas Formations, Areas and % Oak Landcover in Square Kilometers and Square Miles
Oak % Temporarily % Needle Leaf % Cold- % Oaks/ County Area Formation Area Treed Flooded Woodland Evergreen Formation Sym Deciduous Formation Area Blackjack and Post Woodland and 2 Woodland Ratio Km2 Mi2 Km2 Mi2 Km Oak Oak Alluvium Qal 2358.98 910.8 97.47 37.63 30.56 17.91 7.04 6.40 31.35 Windblown Qs 2358.98 910.8 37.24 9.82 7.65 5.78 12.94 18.74 Sand Quaternary Deposits Qau 2358.98 910.8 140.05 54.07 17.74 6.84 8.31 4.37 12.67 Undivided Pleistocene Surficial Qu 2358.98 910.8 20.53 7.93 7.20 8.21 7.95 18.94 35.07 Deposits Undivided Fluviatile Terrace Qt 2358.98 910.8 120.44 46.50 32.51 10.32 6.94 9.72 26.99 Deposits Playa Qp 2358.98 910.8 4.85 1.87 1.29 11.23 13.90 1.60 26.60 Deposits Seymour Formation and other Qao 2358.98 910.8 167.55 64.69 40.65 10.64 6.77 6.85 24.26 Quaternary Deposits Windblown Qcs 2358.98 910.8 5.68 2.19 1.00 5.96 8.26 3.21 17.61 Cover Sand Ogallala To 2358.98 910.8 2.35 0.91 0.55 8.79 8.79 5.49 23.40 Formation Edwards Group Kecw 2358.98 910.8 79.72 30.78 37.55 28.97 17.44 0.68 47.10 Undivided (Ks, Kft) Segovia Ks 2358.98 910.8 139.37 53.81 31.60 9.25 11.48 1.93 22.67 Formation (table continues)
61 Table 4.6 (continued).
Oak % Temporarily % Needle Leaf County Area Formation Area % Cold- % Oaks/ Formation Sym Treed Deciduous Flooded Woodland Evergreen Formation Area Blackjack and Post Woodland and 2 2 2 2 Woodland Ratio Km Mi Km Mi Km2 Oak Oak Fort Terrett Kft 2358.98 910.8 326.42 126.03 98.88 18.63 9.93 1.74 30.29 Antlers Sand Ka 2358.98 910.8 172.03 66.42 69.42 26.81 11.85 1.69 40.35 Dockum TRd 2358.98 910.8 28.33 10.94 14.23 23.38 25.75 1.10 50.23 Group Quartermast IPq 2358.98 910.8 90.51 34.95 37.77 23.96 15.63 2.15 41.73 er Formation Whitehorse Sandstone, Cloud Chief Gypsum and IPwb 2358.98 910.8 9.07 3.50 1.94 10.57 4.00 6.86 21.39 Blaine Formation Undivided Whitehorse Sandstone, IPwh 2358.98 910.8 384.91 148.61 109.15 13.07 9.18 6.10 28.36 Cloud Chief Undivided Blaine IPb 2358.98 910.8 107.74 41.60 37.38 20.24 7.52 6.95 34.69 Formation San Angelo IPsa 2358.98 910.8 236.73 91.40 95.31 17.06 4.29 18.91 40.26 Clear Fork IPcf 2358.98 910.8 120.13 46.38 27.72 9.12 9.27 4.68 23.08 Group Water W 2358.98 910.8 67.86 26.20 17.18 12.56 7.86 4.89 25.32 % County Covered by 2358.98 910.80 699.16 29.64% 30.90 Oaks
62 Table 4.7: Coke County, Texas Bedrock Type and Soil Order Percentages
Carbon- Conglom- Alfisols- Entisols- Mollisols- Formation Shale Sand Silt Clay Gypsum Total Alfisol Mollisol Water Total aceous erate Entisols Alfisols Alfisols Alluvial 13.33 0.00 6.67 26.67 20.00 33.33 0.00 100.00 6.98 32.00 0.93 53.99 6.10 0.00 100.00 Windblown Sand 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.67 33.33 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 2.92 72.34 20.15 4.59 0.00 100.00 Quaternary Deposits 66.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.02 0.44 0.00 98.86 0.50 0.18 100.00 Undivided Pleistocene Surficial 20.00 0.00 10.00 40.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 100.00 21.86 1.76 27.64 46.86 1.88 0.00 100.00 Deposits Undivided Fluviatile Terrace 10.00 0.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.16 25.90 0.21 49.14 24.59 0.00 100.00 Deposits Playa Deposits 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.67 33.33 50.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 75.40 24.60 0.00 100.00 Seymour Formation and other Quaternary 30.00 0.00 40.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 3.77 1.95 0.51 88.82 4.93 0.02 100.00 Deposits Undivided Wind Cover Sand 16.67 0.00 0.00 50.00 33.33 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ogallala Formation 6.67 0.00 13.33 33.33 26.67 20.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Edwards Group 66.67 0.00 0.00 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 3.31 0.00 0.00 96.40 0.29 0.00 100.00 Undivided Segovia Formation 66.67 0.00 0.00 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Fort Terrett 66.67 0.00 0.00 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 99.98 0.02 0.00 100.00 Antlers Sand 0.00 0.00 33.33 50.00 16.67 0.00 0.00 100.00 15.88 0.06 0.05 83.12 0.89 0.00 100.00 Dockum Group 0.00 20.00 10.00 40.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Quartermaster 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.46 1.14 98.40 0.00 0.00 100.00 Formation Whitehorse, Cloud Chief, Blaine 6.67 26.67 33.33 20.00 0.00 0.00 13.33 100.00 26.86 0.00 0.00 73.14 0.00 0.00 100.00 Undivided Whitehorse, Cloud 16.67 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 100.00 2.94 3.17 1.85 91.69 0.32 0.03 100.00 Chief, Undivided Blaine Formation 10.00 40.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 100.00 23.92 1.92 0.00 66.73 7.43 0.00 100.00 San Angelo 0.00 33.33 16.67 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 2.32 2.30 0.00 24.19 71.12 0.07 100.00 Clear Fork Group 33.33 50.00 0.00 16.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 3.03 0.00 83.18 13.79 0.00 100.00 Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 21.96 0.39 45.25 4.81 27.51 100.00
63 Table 4.8: Denton County, Texas Bedrock Type and Soil Order Percentages
Calcar- Conglom- Inceptisol- Mollisol- Vertisol- Formation Marl Shale Sand Silt Clay Total Alfisol Mollisol Vertisol Water Total eous erate Vertisol Vertisol Mollisol Alluvial 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 100.00 8.02 2.39 2.39 76.49 2.10 7.35 1.24 99.98 Fluviatile 10.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 0.00 100.00 36.81 10.48 0.01 14.23 27.09 10.05 1.34 100.01 Surficial 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 40.00 20.00 30.00 100.00 5.52 12.70 0.00 3.51 60.13 18.14 0.00 100.00 Austin Chalk 50.00 16.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 100.00 91.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.75 0.00 0.00 100.00 Eagleford Shale 33.33 0.00 50.00 0.00 16.67 0.00 0.00 100.00 40.71 19.82 0.00 1.50 36.06 0.00 1.91 100.00 Woodbine 10.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 20.00 100.00 92.77 0.02 0.00 2.24 3.26 1.07 0.65 100.01 Dexter 16.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 33.33 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Grayson Main St 33.33 50.00 0.00 0.00 16.67 0.00 0.00 100.00 45.82 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 53.46 0.00 99.99 Pawpaw 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.67 0.00 33.33 100.00 93.80 0.00 0.00 6.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Weno 33.33 66.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 80.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Denton Clay 30.00 10.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 100.00 42.69 0.00 0.00 57.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Bokchito 6.67 20.00 13.33 0.00 33.33 0.00 26.67 100.00 25.26 0.00 0.00 3.33 0.00 71.41 0.00 100.00 Fort Worth 66.67 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 19.41 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 80.41 0.00 100.00 Duck Creek 33.33 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.67 100.00 0.00 0.00 17.51 1.29 0.00 81.20 0.00 100.00 Caddo 50.00 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.67 100.00 27.76 0.00 2.25 3.24 0.00 66.75 0.00 100.00 Kiamichi 30.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 47.99 6.84 0.00 45.18 0.00 100.01 Goodland 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 83.04 11.86 0.00 5.10 0.00 100.00 Antler 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.67 50.00 0.00 33.33 100.00 0.00 0.00 92.62 7.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.86 1.97 0.33 3.45 0.96 0.27 87.16 100.00
64 Table 4.9: Choctaw County, Oklahoma Bedrock Type and Soil Order Percentages
Carbona- Conglom- Formation Marl Shale Sand Silt Clay Tuff Total Alfisols Entisols Inceptisols Mollisols Ultisols Vertisols Water Total ceous erate Alluvial 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 33.33 16.67 0.00 100.00 30.10 27.40 0.00 19.70 5.20 10.60 7.20 100.00 Terrace 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 0.00 100.00 63.90 13.50 0.00 11.20 5.10 4.37 2.00 100.00 Woodbine 10.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 100.00 87.50 3.98 0.00 0.65 0.00 7.80 0.10 100.00 Bennington 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 83.60 16.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 McNut/Pawpaw Ls 30.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 100.00 98.60 0.61 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.18 0.00 100.00 Weno/Soper 33.33 16.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 100.00 91.00 0.00 0.00 4.58 0.00 4.38 0.00 100.00 Denton Clay 10.00 30.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 100.00 69.70 0.00 0.00 1.11 0.00 29.20 0.00 100.00 Caddo 33.33 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 16.67 0.00 0.00 100.00 27.80 0.06 0.00 1.67 2.20 68.30 0.00 100.00 Kiamichi 16.67 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 100.00 51.20 1.72 0.00 0.27 4.60 42.20 0.00 100.00 Goodland Ls 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 64.60 1.99 0.00 0.69 5.90 26.50 0.40 100.00 Antlers 0.00 16.67 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 33.33 0.00 100.00 40.00 1.31 0.50 0.96 54.00 3.07 0.10 100.00 Wildhorse Mnt 0.00 0.00 33.33 0.00 66.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 41.00 0.00 59.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Temmile Creek 0.00 16.67 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 33.33 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
65 Soil maps, for Choctaw, Denton and Coke Counties were created from raster based STATSGO USGS 1996, converted into shape files using ArcMap, and then projected into GCS North American 1983. Relative percentage of soil order coverage for each of the three counties, are based on the actual area of any given order found on the surface. Further, appendix Tables A11, A12, and A13, present the actual area in square kilometers or miles for each of the soil orders found on each formation for the three counties. Tables 4.7, 4.8, and 4.9 present the approximate percentage exposure of each soil order with respect to their underlying formations. For example, based on GIS
ArcMap analysis in Table 4.7 the approximate soil order coverage on the Alluvial outcrop in Coke County are as follows: Alfisols over 7%, Alfisols-Entisols 32%, Entisols-
Alfisols 0.9%, Mollisols 54% and Mollisols-Alfisols 6.1%. Sixteen of the 21 formations in
Coke County had greater than 50% of the soil order Mollisol developed on their formation. Further, Mollisols cover approximately 715.1 of the 906.7 square miles in
Coke County or 78.7% (Figure 4.1). The high percentage of Mollisol soils is in keeping with the general classification of this soil type on uplands in flats and valleys with low precipitation. The Mollisols tend to form over moderate calcareous to non calcareous parent material where soil development has occurred for long periods of time (Soil
Survey Staff, 1999).
A climate classification system recognized world wide was devised by German climatologist and botanist Vladimir Köppen. His system describes climatic regions and why such climates are found where they occur. Based on Köppen’s system, the counties in the study area would be classified as: (Cfa) C – Mesothermal climate, humid subtropical, hot summers, but without a dry season. Major biomes associated with the
66 Coke County, Texas
90.00%
80.00% 78.67% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% Soil Orders 38.97%
40.00% 35.96% Quercus 30.95% 29.90% 30.00% 28.34% 25.31% 20.00%
10.00% 10.43% 4.75% 3.94% 1.83% 0.00% 0.38%
ls ter sols so llisol i fi nt Wa Alfisols E -Al Mo -Alfisols ls ols s so ti lli n o Alfisols- E M
Figure 4.1: Total % soil order coverage in Coke County Texas.
above classification should be tall and short mid-latitude grasslands. Classic climate regions such as Köppens are used to determine the location of major ecosystems on the earth. In the three county research areas the functional relationships between precipitation and temperature, and the number of species present in each county was examined. Table 4.10 shows that the number of species increases with the amount of precipitation from west to east. Coke County has six species of oaks and the least amount of rainfall (550 mm) while the highest number of species (19) is found in
Choctaw County which has the highest rainfall (1198 mm). Since temperature varies by approximately 1 degree centigrade over the three county study areas, it would be reasonable to say that temperature does not exert an influence on the number of species found in the respective counties.
67 Table 4.10: Number of Oak Species in Choctaw, Denton and Coke Counties vs Average Monthly Temperature and Precipitation Monthly Oak Species Month Averages 21 in Choctaw 13 in Denton 6 in Coke Temp (°C) 5.6 6.9 6.2 Jan Prec (mm) 71 53 20
Feb Temp (°C) 7.8 9.4 8.8 Prec (mm) 81 63 28
Mar Temp (°C) 12.4 13.5 13.3 Prec (mm) 99 76 25
Apr Temp (°C) 17.5 18.2 18.3 Prec (mm) 112 129 48
May Temp (°C) 21.5 22.4 22.9 Prec (mm) 147 104 84
Jun Temp (°C) 25.9 26.6 26.8 Prec (mm) 114 71 63
Jul Temp (°C) 28.1 29.0 28.9 Prec (mm) 89 58 38
Aug Temp (°C) 27.7 28.8 28.0 Prec (mm) 79 84 48
Sept Temp (°C) 23.9 24.9 24.2 Prec (mm) 112 112 79
Oct Temp (°C) 18.2 18.5 18.7 Prec (mm) 112 71 66
Nov Temp (°C) 11.7 12.8 12.5 Prec (mm) 96 61 28
Dec Temp (°C) 7.4 8.4 7.5 Prec (mm) 86 58 23 Yearly Avg (°C)/ 17.3/1198 18.3/970 18.0/550 Annual Total (mm)
Denton County receives approximately 87% more annual rainfall than Coke
County and 28% less than Choctaw. Further, Denton has a distribution of approximately
68 40.7% Alfisols, 27.4% Vertisols-Mollisols and the remaining 32% divided between the
Incepitsols, Mollisols and Vertisols (Figure 4.2). The Goodland formation in Denton
County composed of almost 100% calcareous materials, yields nearly 83% Mollisols, while the Woodbine Sandstone comprising sand, shale, clay and calcareous materials yields 92.8% Alfisols. In contrast to the Goodland’s high calcareous content, the Antler sandstone composed of sand, clay, and conglomerate also yields 92.6% Mollisols. A visually comparison of the geology and soil order GIS maps for the three counties, reveals that the soil order more closely reflect the pattern of the underlying bedrock in
Denton than in the other two counties.
Denton County Texas
60.00% 49.97%
50.00% 45.40% 41.09% 40.00% 40.49% 33.31% Soil Orders
30.00% 27.42% 23.83% 21.50% Quercus 20.00% 10.36% 8.88% 6.95%
10.00% 5.65% 3.48% 2.40% 0.00%
r ls ols ls te ols a iso tis W Alfisols is rt ollisols er lliso ert M V o -V -Ve -M ls ls ls iso iso tiso pt ll r ce Mo Ve In
Figure 4.2: Total % of soil order coverage for Denton County Texas.
Choctaw County, Oklahoma receives approximately 40% more rainfall than
Denton and 163% the average annual precipitation of Coke County, Texas. Alfisols cover approximately 53% of the Choctaw County, with Ultisols and Vertisols covering
14.9 and 14.9% respectively (Figure 4.3). Choctaw has the highest average annual
69 precipitation of the three counties, and the greatest number of soil orders (9) while
Denton and Coke have 6 and 5 soil orders respectively.
Choctaw County, Oklahoma
100.00% 90.00% 86.90% 80.00% 66.42%
70.00% 63.75% 55.77% 54.19% 60.00% 52.51% Soil Order
50.00% 43.34% 40.00% Quercus 27.58% 26.80%
30.00% 21.58% 14.93% 14.87%
20.00% 11.88% 5.36% 3.54% 3.33% 3.09% 10.00% 1.76% 0.49% 0.00% 0.12%
l r ol o te llisol tisols rtisols Wa Alfisols o Ultisols e Mollis En Mollisols V Inceptisols lfisol-Entis isol- A rtisol-M Alf e V
Alfisol-
Figure 4.3: Total % oak vs soil order coverage for Choctaw County Oklahoma.
Types of landcover were overlain onto each geologic formation in the three counties using ArcGIS. Property tables from ArcMap were exported into Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, and relative frequency tables A.14 – A.16 were created. Collectively, this data was used to explore Question 2, what lithologic types support the communities of oak growth? From the frequency tables, summary Tables 4.6, 4.11 and 4.12, and
Figures 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 were created for their respective counties.
70 Table 4.11 Denton County, Texas Formations, Areas and % Oak Landcover
% Cold- % Temporarily Needle-Leaved Trees % Oaks/ County Area Formation Area Deciduous Flooded Cold- Evergreen Formation Sym Area Woodland Formation 2 Deciduous Woodland and Km Blackjack and Ratio 2 2 2 2 Woodland Oaks Km Mi Km Mi Post Oak Alluvial Qal 2470.19 953.40 222.82 86.02 103.34 21.38 17.59 6.35 45.32% Fluviatile Terrace Qt 2470.19 953.40 220.88 85.34 66.98 16.16 3.53 13.71 33.40% Deposits Surficial Deposits Qu 2470.19 953.40 95.08 36.77 26.26 14.63 3.21 6.97 24.81% Undivided Austin Kau 2470.19 953.40 16.39 6.40 4.53 13.11 2.37 0.16 15.64% Chalk Eagleford Shale Kef 2470.19 953.40 211.71 81.87 51.12 12.58 4.06 8.07 24.71% Formation Woodbine Kwb 2470.19 953.40 571.22 220.65 112.35 13.02 3.84 15.35 32.21% Dexter (Member of Kwd 2470.19 953.40 1.30 0.50 0.66 40.00 8.00 2.00 50.00% Woodbine) Grayson Marl and Kgm 2470.19 953.40 123.67 47.77 32.69 18.01 2.24 15.18 35.43% Main Street Limestone Pawpaw Kpp 2470.19 953.40 6.27 2.42 2.20 27.69 3.72 5.79 37.20% Formation Weno Kwe 2470.19 953.40 0.10 0.05 0.07 50.00 0.00 0.00 50.00% Limestone Denton Clay Kd 2470.19 953.40 15.58 4.86 7.94 39.37 0.50 11.63 51.50% Bokchito Formation Undivided in Kpd 2470.19 953.40 213.75 82.54 76.72 24.73 1.34 16.33 42.40% OK (Kpp, Kwe, Kd) (table continues)
71 Table 4.11 (continued).
% Cold- % Temporarily Needle-Leaved County Area Formation Area Trees % Oaks/ Deciduous Flooded Cold- Evergreen Formation Sym Area Woodland Formation 2 Deciduous Woodland and 2 2 2 2 Km Ratio Km Mi Km Mi Blackjack and Woodland Oaks Post Oak Fort Worth Kfw 2470.19 953.40 55.94 21.64 18.93 20.88 1.71 14.91 37.50% Limestone Duck Creek Kdc 2470.19 953.40 32.14 12.45 14.27 29.65 1.37 13.62 44.64% Formation Caddo Formation Undivided in Kc 2470.19 953.40 457.94 176.91 166.90 22.53 2.11 15.00 39.64% OK (Kfw, Kdc) Kiamichi Kki 2470.19 953.40 21.08 8.19 10.19 36.12 1.72 13.14 50.98% Formation Goodland Limestone and Walnut Kgw 2470.19 953.40 29.32 11.38 16.28 43.37 2.21 6.45 52.03% Clay Undivided Antler Sand Ka 2470.19 953.40 3.13 1.22 1.45 40.50 4.13 4.13 48.76% Water W 2470.19 953.40 171.87 66.42 11.00 4.82 1.21 0.50 6.53% Percent of County 2470.19 953.40 723.88 29.30% Covered by Oaks
72 Table 4.12: Choctaw County, Oklahoma Formations, Areas and % Oak Landcover
% Cold- % Upland Deciduous Temporarily Needle- County Area Formation Area Oak Upland Flooded Leaved % Oaks/ Formation Sym Trees Lowland 2 Woodland Evergreen Formation Area Km Blackjack and Cold- and Oaks Km2 Mi2 Km2 Mi2 Post Oak Deciduous Woodlands Woodland Alluvial Qal 2065.01 797.29 224.58 86.71 79.35 21.11 3.77 10.29 35.33% Terrace Deposits Qt 2065.01 797.29 271.59 104.86 84.89 18.04 4.15 9.08 31.26% Woodbine Kwb 2065.01 797.29 278.92 107.69 87.28 27.77 2.17 1.39 31.29% Formation Bennington Kb 2065.01 797.29 7.54 2.91 2.51 27.15 4.13 1.72 33.29% Limestone Pawpaw Sandstone/Bokchit Kpb 2065.01 797.29 114.17 44.08 25.06 18.76 2.20 0.96 21.95% o Weno/Soper/Bokch Kbw 2065.01 797.29 91.38 35.28 19.52 18.42 2.05 0.89 21.36% ito Kbs Denton bd 2065.01 797.29 95.00 36.68 16.83 14.75 1.69 1.29 17.72% Clay/Bokchito Caddo Formation Kc 2065.01 797.29 205.70 79.42 91.02 21.37 10.41 12.49 44.25% Kiamichi Formation Kki 2065.01 797.29 148.98 57.52 47.40 18.59 6.03 7.21 31.82% Goodland Kg 2065.01 797.29 72.73 28.08 21.47 19.95 3.60 6.06 29.52% Limestone Antlers Sandstone Ka 2065.01 797.29 469.18 181.15 259.15 19.54 4.28 31.42 55.23% Wildhorse IPwu Mountain/Jackfork 2065.01 797.29 18.65 7.20 15.22 7.23 3.75 70.56 81.61% IPwp Group Tenmile Creek Mt 2065.01 797.29 0.44 0.17 0.38 11.76 17.64 58.82 86.36% Formation/Stanley Water W 2065.01 797.29 66.15 25.54 7.64 5.60 1.68 4.23 11.55% Percent of County 2065.01 797.29 757.72 38.61% Covered by Oaks
73
Coke County Texas
60.00% 50.23%
50.00% 47.10% 41.73% 40.35% 40.00% 40.26% 35.12% 34.69% 31.35%
30.29% Formation 28.36%
30.00% 26.99% 26.60% 26.37% 25.32% 24.26%
23.40% Quercus 23.08% 22.67% 21.39% 19.51%
20.00% 17.43% 16.32% 13.84% 10.04%
10.00% 7.10% 7.29% 5.94% 5.91% 5.11% 5.09% 4.57% 4.13% 3.84% 3.38% 2.88% 1.58% 1.20% 0.87% 0.21% 0.24% 0.38% 0.00% 0.10%
s t p ft q b b h b f al Q au Qu Q Q ao cs To w Ks K Ka P w w W Q Q Q Q TRd I P P IP IPc Kec I IPw I
Figure 4.4: Total % oak vs formation coverage for Coke County, Texas.
Denton County Texas
60.0% 52.0% 51.5% 51.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 48.8% 45.3% 44.6% 42.4% 39.6% 37.5% 40.0% 37.2% 35.4% 33.4% 32.2% Formation 30.0% 24.8% 24.7%
23.1% Quercus
20.0% 18.5% 15.6% 9.0% 8.9% 8.7% 8.6% 7.0%
10.0% 6.5% 5.0% 3.8% 2.3% 1.2% 1.3% 0.9% 0.6% 0.7% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
l i Qt u p e c c k w W Qa Qu a Kef wd w Kd fw d K K g Ka K Kwb K Kgm Kp K Kpd K K K
Figure 4.5: Total % oak vs formation coverage for Denton County, Texas.
74 Choctaw County Oklahoma
100.00%
90.00% 86.36% 81.61% 80.00% 70.00%
60.00% 55.23% Formation 50.00% 44.25% Oaks/Formation
40.00% 35.33% 33.29% 31.82% 31.26% 31.29% 30.00% 29.52% 22.72% 21.95% 21.36%
20.00% 17.72% 13.51% 13.15% 11.55% 10.88% 9.96% 7.21% 5.53% 4.60%
10.00% 4.43% 3.52% 3.20% 0.90% 0.37% 0.00% 0.02%
al b c ki g p t Qt K pb s bd K K Ka w M W Q K b K Kwb IP u Kbw K IPw
Figure 4.6: Total % oak vs formation coverage for Choctaw County, Oklahoma.
Coke County data from Table 4.6 indicates that total county surface area covered
by landcover communities to be 729 square kilometers or approximately 31% of the
county. The following sand, silt and clay rich formations support oak growth of approximately 40-50%: Dockum Group, Antlers Sand, Quartermaster formation, and the
San Angelo sandstone. These formations crop out on the rim of the Edwards Plateau in
the south portion of the county. Field observations from the valley verify the existence of
oaks in a distinct band along the Canyon rim of the Edwards Plateau. Supporting the
highest percentage of oak growth and an exception to the other siliceous formations is
the cherty and dolomitic Edwards Group. The out cropping of the Edwards group with
the highest percentage of landcover in Coke County is on private property on the north
border of the county and the author was not able to gain access to the area to make
field observations with respect to the quantity or presence of oaks. The Quaternary
Deposits and Windblown Cover Sand support the lowest coverage at under 20%. Areas
75 occasionally covered by water exhibits oak coverage of approximately 25.3%, possibly due to high evaporation rates and constant drawdown of the lake waters for city, farm, and commercial usage (Figure 4.4). Field observations along the Quaternary stream deposits below Robert Lee dam verified the presence of oaks along the stream channels. However the inclusion of Honey Mesquite in the Texas GAP code 22 (upland oaks) most likely inflates the actual number of oaks on this outcrop. The Windblown sands crop out in the northwest corner of the county and no field observations were made in that area.
In Denton County, five formations: the sandy Dexter member of the Woodbine,
Weno Limestone, Denton Clay, Kiamichi formation, and Goodland Limestone and
Walnut Clay Undivided support oak between 50-70%. Traditionally, the Woodbine
Sandstone, excluding the Dexter member, has been recognized as having the largest percentage of coverage of oak vegetation of any formation in Denton County, but now supports coverage of 32.24%. Field observations support this statistic. Further the GIS analysis shows that approximately 13.4% of the Woodbine is urbanized while cropland utilizes roughly 24.8% of the formation. Without the presence of urbanization and cropland the Woodbine would carry a much higher quantity of oaks. Currently, 12 of the
18 formations in the county carry a higher percentage of landcover than the Woodbine.
Field observations agree with the tree coverage on these formations, but the trees on many of those formations are rarely oak. Two formations, the Surficial Deposits
Undivided, and Eagleford Shale Formation, support 24.8 and 24.7% coverage, while the
Austin Chalk supports 15.6%. Again field observations in eastern Denton County support the existence of tree coverage, but not the presence of oaks on the Eagleford
76 Shale or Austin in the quantities indicated by the GIS data. Denton County maintains a
more constant lake level than Coke County, and oak coverage on Lake Ray Roberts
and Lake Lewisville amounts to 6.5%. This coverage is a reasonable assessment in that
the eastern half of Lake Ray Roberts and the western half of Lake Lewisville are on the
Woodbine Sandstone. There is a higher overall percentage of coverage by oaks on the
sandy formations of Denton than in Coke County (Table 4.11 and Figure 4.5). Higher
precipitation rates in Denton most likely contribute to the overall larger coverage by the
oaks throughout the County.
Choctaw County, Oklahoma supports the highest county wide oak coverage with
36.69% and the highest coverage for a single formation with the Tenmile Creek/Stanley
formation at 86.4%, however, there is only 0.4 square kilometers of the formation in the
county and the coverage may be an anomaly. Further the formation is on private
property and in a remote area of the state not easily accessible to be ground truthing.
The Wildhorse Mountain/Jack Fork Group supports 81.6% coverage on a total of 18.7
km2 of formation in Choctaw County. The Antlers Sand covers 22.7% of Choctaw
County and is populated with oaks on 55.2% of the area. In Choctaw County the four
formations supporting the highest percentage of oak coverage are dominantly
sandstone rich. This compares reasonably well to the distribution of oaks on sandy
formation other counties. Three formations, the Goodland Limestone, Pawpaw
Sandstone Formation, and Weno-Soper-Bochito, have oak coverage in the 20% range
(Table 4.12 and Figure 4.6). Choctaw County has precipitation in excess of 47 inches
per year and a greater variety of soil orders have developed compared to the other two
counties and deeper soils have formed. The continuum of soil to bedrock is greater and
77 potentially the deeper the soil the correspondingly less influence from the bedrock mineralogy. Therefore oaks would be found on formations in the counties receiving less precipitation that would not normally support oak growth.
Denton and Choctaw Counties have the most formations in common, but have differing percentages of oak coverage for the formations. With the exception of the
Woodbine, the Denton County formations have a higher percentage of landcover than the Choctaw County Formations. For example, the landcover on the Woodbine
Sandstone in Denton County is 32.2% similar to Choctaw County’s 31.3%. The oak distribution has been greatly influenced in both counties by human intervention.
Urbanization and cropland now cover 38% of Denton County and introduced pasture
45.3% have taken the place of many oaks in Choctaw County. The Weno Limestone supports 50% landcover in Denton and 21.4% in Choctaw. These formations are undivided in both counties therefore it is unclear if the oak distribution is actually on the
Weno or the Pawpaw. Most likely the oaks are supported by the more sandy Pawpaw formation.
Only one formation, the Antlers Sandstone, is found in all three counties. The
Antlers is traditionally associated with the Cross Timbers and carries a high percentage of oak coverage listed as follows from east to west: 55.2% coverage in Choctaw, 48.7% in Denton County, and 40.4% coverage in Coke County. With respect to this formation there is virtually no urbanization therefore the oak coverage may be less affected and closer to the coverage before human intervention occurred. As precipitation decreases from east to west there are fewer oaks on the formations.
78 Using ArcGIS, oak land cover was overlaid onto the soil orders for each county
and frequency tables A17, A18, and A19 were generated. Tables 4.13, 4.14, and 4.15 summarize the total county area, soil orders, and the total percentage of landcover found on each soil order. This section examines the second question, what soil order types support the communities of oak growth?
Coke County has five soil orders, with the Mollisols covering approximately
78.6% of the county. Mollisols are the most prevalent soil order in the county, and support 29.9% oak coverage. In the dry climate the Mollisols tend to form regardless of the underlying bedrock. The soil order supporting the largest population of oaks is the
Mollisols-Alfisols with 39%. Distribution of oaks on the five soil orders range from 29.3% on the Entisols-Alfisols to 38.9% on the Mollisols-Alfisols (Table 4.13).
Data indicates that treed vegetation cover 831 square kilometers or 33.6% of
Denton County; the soil order Alfisols is most prevalent covering 1,000.9 square kilometers or approximately 40.5% of the county. In Denton County the Alfisols have largely formed over the Woodbine Sandstone, the formation traditionally associated with
the oaks. Vertisols/Mollisols are second in landcover with 677.8 square kilometers or
approximately 27.4% of the county. These soils have largely formed over the
calcareous bedrock of the Fort Worth and Duck Creek formations. Field observations
indicate that the tree landcover is not mainly oaks but Mesquite and other deciduous
trees. However on the Duck Creek formation there are island of oak trees growing on
outliers of Woodbine sitting on top of the Duck Creek formation. An excellent example of
this is near the now defunct town of Sweetwater on Highway 380. Just past the
cemetery is a small outlier of Woodbine Sandstone that has eroded into a sandy soil
79 Table 4.13: Coke County, Texas Soil Order Area and % Oak Landcover
% Cold- % % Needle- County Soil Oak Deciduous Temporarily Leaved Soil Order Area % Soil Oaks/Soil Order Area Landcover Upland Flooded Evergreen Soil Order Order in Order Area Woodland Lowland Woodland County 2 Ratio Km Blackjack Cold- and Oak Km2 Mi2 Km2 Mi2 and Post Deciduous Woodlands Oak Woodland Alfisols 2348.40 906.72 92.82 35.84 3.95% 33.37 23.24 6.64 6.08 35.95% Alfisols-Entisols 2348.40 906.72 112.06 43.27 4.77% 34.67 14.35 6.96 9.64 30.94% Entisols-Alfisols 2348.40 906.72 43.23 16.69 1.84% 12.24 5.87 5.81 16.66 28.31% Mollisols 2348.40 906.72 1845.45 712.53 78.58% 554.67 15.79 10.22 3.89 30.06% Mollisols-Alfisols 2348.40 906.72 245.83 94.92 10.47% 95.75 15.39 4.38 19.20 38.95% Water 2348.40 906.72 9.01 3.48 0.38% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total Oak Landcover 2348.40 906.72 730.70 31.11%
Table 4.14: Denton County, Texas Soil Order Area and % Oak Landcover
% Cold- % % Needle- County Soil Oak Deciduous Temporarily Leaved Soil Order Area % Soil Oaks/ Order Area Landcover Upland Flooded Evergreen Soil Order Order in Soil Order Area Woodland Lowland Woodland and County 2 Ratio Km Blackjack Cold- Oak 2 2 2 2 Km Mi Km Mi and Post Oak Deciduous Woodlands Woodland Alfisols 2471.71 957.03 1000.91 389.16 40.49% 335.69 14.93 3.71 14.67 33.54% Inceptisols/Vertisols 2471.71 957.03 86.10 33.25 3.48% 18.54 13.86 2.65 4.99 21.53% Mollisols/Vertisols 2471.71 957.03 256.11 98.86 10.36% 116.25 20.36 14.72 10.32 45.39% Mollisols/Vertisols 2471.71 957.03 59.33 22.91 2.40% 29.65 37.36 3.23 9.38 49.97% Vertisols 2471.71 957.03 219.57 84.78 8.88% 52.34 14.60 2.23 6.00 23.84% Vertisols/Mollisols 2471.71 957.03 677.82 261.71 27.42% 278.55 23.99 1.91 15.19 41.09% Water 2471.71 957.03 171.87 66.36 6.95% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total Oak Landcover 2471.71 957.03 831.02 33.62%
80 Table 4.15: Choctaw County, Oklahoma Soil Order Area and % Oak Landcover
% Cold- % % Needle- County Soil Oak Deciduous Temporarily Leaved Soil Order Area % Soil Oaks/ Order Area Landcover Upland Flooded Evergreen Soil Order Order in Soil Order Area Woodland Lowland Woodland County 2 Ratio Km Blackjack Cold- and Oak 2 2 2 2 Km Mi Km Mi and Post Deciduous Woodlands Oak Woodland Alfisols 2063.33 796.65 1083.41 418.31 52.51% 298.77 23.02 3.62 4.56 27.58% Alfisols/Entisols 2063.33 796.65 36.38 14.05 1.76% 20.29 24.34 5.34 41.00 55.77% Alfisols/Mollisols 2063.33 796.65 2.40 0.93 0.12% 1.53 62.37 6.45 1.08 63.75% Alfisols/Vertisols/Mollisols 2063.33 796.65 63.79 24.64 3.09% 34.57 38.52 10.72 15.67 54.19% Entisols 2063.33 796.65 110.64 42.72 5.36% 29.65 18.24 10.88 5.26 26.80% Inceptisols 2063.33 796.65 10.08 3.88 0.49% 8.76 2.32 0.00 84.79 86.90% Mollisols 2063.33 796.65 68.78 26.55 3.33% 14.84 14.46 5.80 13.45 21.58% Ultisols 2063.33 796.65 308.05 118.92 14.93% 204.62 11.33 1.74 55.09 66.42% Vertisols 2063.33 796.65 306.72 118.42 14.87% 132.92 21.07 1.13 23.74 43.34% Water 2063.33 796.65 73.08 28.23 3.54% 8.68 7.09 0.78 4.75 11.88% Total Oak Landcover 2063.33 796.65 754.63 36.57%
81 populated with oaks. The soil order Mollisols supports the largest landcover with 49.9%
in the northwest corner of Denton County along Clear Creek. Very large oaks can be
seen along Highway 52 in the valleys carved by the upper extension of Clear Creek.
Just to the northwest and outside of Denton County, Clear Creek cuts through the Antler
Sandstone and the added sand eroded from the Antlers and deposited along the banks
of the Creek provide excellent sandy soils for the oak as well as many other types of
deciduous trees. The Inceptisols/Vertisols have the lowest percentage of landcover with
21.5% (Table 4.14). These soils form mainly over the Eagleford Shale in eastern
Denton. Very few oak trees were seen during field observation but there were sufficient
other deciduous types to account the coverage as indicated in the GIS data.
The dominant soil order in Choctaw County is the Alfisols with 1,083.4 square
kilometers or approximately 52.5% coverage. The Alfisols form mainly over the
Woodbine sand which is the formation traditionally associated with oak trees. The
Vertisols have landcover of 14.8% and tend to form over the calcareous formations.
Choctaw County is not well developed and field observations made along highways and
dirt roads tend to support the coverage indicated by the GIS data. Inceptisols have the
highest area tree coverage with 87.1%. The Incepitsols are located in the rugged
northeast Ouachita Mountains the author could not make reasonable field observations to substantiate the presence or absence of oaks. The lowest coverage is found on the
Mollisols, at 21.6% (Table 4.15). I was not able to make field observations in these areas because the soils were either on private property and very few roads passed
through the area.
82 RDA Visualization of Lithlogic Correlations
Canonical community ordination (CANOCO) is designed to analyze and visualize the relationships between species and their environment (Ter Braak and Smilauer,
2002). In CANOCO, species is the term for the dependent variable and for this study the species are the various oak associations: upland oak woodlands, lowland oak woodlands, and needle-leaf evergreen/oak woodlands. The final phase of analysis plots oak species abundance against the independent variables for each species. Oak species were grouped into one of three categories: upland oak woodlands, lowland oak woodlands and needle-leaf evergreen/oak woodlands. Independent variables in
CANOCO are called environmental variables. The environmental variables are bedrock composition and soil orders. WCanoImp (a sub routine in CANOCO) was used to convert Excel spreadsheets into a format acceptable to CANOCO. Separate files were created for dependent variables (oaks) and environmental variables (bedrock lithology and soil orders), then they were imported into CANOCO’s project folder. A new project was opened with species and environment data from the project file selected for analysis. Environmental data, when available, would be used to extract patterns from the explained variation using direct gradient analysis. Species and environmental data were imported into the new file for analysis and a solution name for the project was chosen. Four analyses were completed, one for each county and then the three counties combined. The all county analysis was completed for the purpose of comparison for an overall distribution that might be common to the counties individually.
The first analysis based on the above model generated the message, “collinearity detected when fitting variables.” And inflation factors on the 23 environmental variables
83 were high in most cases. When inflation factors are high, CANOCO recommends running a (RDA) redundancy analysis. A series of constrained DCCA’s and CCA’s produced similar results. However, due to high inflation factors for all variables, only the
RDA results are presented. A new project was opened and species and environment data from the project file was selected for analysis. The species and environmental data were imported into the new file for analysis and a solution name for the project was chosen. This time RDA was selected and scaling linear methods, symmetric and species scores divided by standard deviation was selected. To prevent a few high values from unduly influencing the ordination, CANOCO recommends a square root transformation on data. Consequently transformations were performed on all the analyses. Samples were not centered and standardized. CANOCO recommends for better visual presentation that the species be centered and standardized. The environmental variables were edited to remove independent variables with all zero values or collinearity. Automatic selection for best (K) for the Monte Carlo Permutation test were selected, and the number of permutations was set to the program recommended minimum of 199. Unrestricted permutations were selected and the software program’s random generator set seeds. The Monte Carlo permutation test is in essence a backward elimination that starts with all the independent variables in the equation. The process is continued until no more variables are removed. Once a variable is removed it cannot be entered again. The (p-value) generated for each independent variable remaining in the model can be used to decide whether that variable is eliminated. The null hypothesis assumes there is no effect by the independent variables bedrock and soils on the oak population. If the value is unlikely
84 for no effect you conclude there is an effect and the result is statistically significant. For all CANOCO RDA runs, the first two eigenvalues reported are canonical; the other two are not since there are only 3 species. The degrees of freedom for each of the four analyses is (n-1) where n is the number of variables. Statistical significance in
CANOCO’s Monte Carlo permutation test is based on the arbitrary value 0.05. The above analysis methods were applied to create Figures 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10 (data for figures appears in Table 4.16).
Figure 4.7 triplot portrays the associations between the three oak groupings from
51 samples, 3 species, and 23 environmental variables. Axes 1 and 2 had eigenvalues of 58.2% and 20.7%, respectively. The Monte Carlo permutations run with respect to the dependent variables oaks and the independent variables, Mollisols and Ultisols, each showed a statistical significance of p=0.002. Mollisols cover approximately 30% landcover on 79% of Coke County, while Ulitsols have approximately 66% coverage on
15% of Choctaw County. As can be seen in Figure 4.7 the Mollisols are closely associated with the lowland oaks and the Ultisols are moderately associated the needle- leaf evergreen and oaks. For all RDA analyses the black arrows represent oak groupings, red tipped blue arrows are independent variables lithology and soil orders, and the green numbers are sample sites (formations).
Figure 4.8 produced in Cano Draw are an RDA triplot of Coke County, with 20 active samples, 3 species, and 12 active variables. Axes 1 and 2 had eigenvalues of
72.2% and 13.9% respectively. The Monte Carlo permutations run with respect to the dependent variables oaks and the independent variables, Mollisols showed a statistical significance of 0.005, Conglomerates showed a statistical significance of p=0.005, and
85
Figure 4.7: CANOCO redundancy analysis (RDA) triplot of all county data, 51 samples, 3 species, and 23 environmental variables. Data was transformed by square root and a Monte Carlo with 199 permutations performed. Since there are only 3 species the first two eigenvalues reported are canonical, the other two are not. Axes 1 and 2 had eigenvalues of 58.2% and 20.7%, respectively. Black arrows represent oak groupings, red tipped blue arrows are independent variables lithology and soil orders, and the green numbers are sample sites (formations).
Entisols/Alfisols is worth mentioning with a p=0.05. As can be seen in Figure 4.8 the
upland oak landcover have a positive relation to gypsum and conglomerate, but a
negative relationship with clay, silt, sand and Entisols/Alfisosls. Lowland oak landcover
have a positive relationship with calcareous, clay and silt bedrock and soil order
86 Mollisols, but a negative relation with shale, Alfisols and Alfisols/Entisols. Needle-leaf evergreen/oak woodlands have a positive relationship with shale, Entisols/Alfisols and
Alfisols, but negative with calcareous deposits and soil order Mollisols.
Figure 4.8: CANOCO redundancy analysis (RDA) triplot Coke County, Texas, 20 samples, 3 species, and 20 active environmental variables. Data was transformed by square root and a Monte Carlo with 199 permutations performed. The RDA-triplot of samples (County formations), species (three oak groupings), and environmental variables (lithology and soil orders), since there are only 3 species the first two eigenvalues reported are canonical, the other two are not. Axes 1 and 2 had eigenvalues of 72.2% and 13.9%, respectively. Black arrows represent oak groupings, red tipped blue arrows are independent variables lithology and soil orders, and the green numbers are sample sites (formations).
87 Denton County lithology is correlated with oak in Figure 4.9. Cano Draw generated a triplot of Coke County, with 18 active samples, 3 species, and 23 variables.
Axes 1 and 2 had eigenvalues of 80.6% and 7.9% respectively. The Monte Carlo permutations run with respect to the dependent variables oaks and the independent variable, silt showed a statistical significance of 0.06, conglomerates showed a statistical significance of p=0.005, and Entisols/Alfisols p=0.05. As can be seen in
Figure 4.9 the Lowland oaks have a positive correlation with sand, silt, clay and
Mollisols/Vertisols, but a negative relation with shale and Vertisols/Mollisols. Needle-leaf evergreen/oak woodlands have a positive relationship with shale and Vertisols/Mollisosl, but a negative correlation with sand, silt and clay bedrock. The upland oaks in Denton
County have a positive correlation to clay and Mollisols, but negative with respect to conglomerate and shale.
For Choctaw County Figure 4.10 the triplot has 13 samples, 3 species, and 13 active environmental variables. Axes 1 and 2 had eigenvalues of 89.6% and 8.2% respectively. The Monte Carlo permutations run with respect to the dependent variables oaks and the independent variable, Ultisols showed a statistical significance of 0.005 and Entisols showed a statistical significance of p=0.05. As can be seen in Figure 4.10 the upland oaks in Choctaw County have a positive correlation to calcareous outcrops and soil orders Entisols and Vertisols. Needle-leaf evergreen/oak woodlands have a positive relationship with sand, shale, Ultisols, and Inceptisols.
88 Figure 4.9: CANOCO redundancy analysis (RDA) triplot of Denton County, Texas data, 18 samples, 3 species and 33 active environmental variables. Data was transformed by square root and a Monte Carlo with 199 permutations performed. The RDA-triplot of samples (County formations), species (three oak groupings), and environmental variables (lithology and soil order), since there are only 3 species the first two eigenvalues reported are canonical, the other two are not. Axes 1 and 2 had eigenvalues of 80.6% and 7.9%, respectively. Black arrows represent oak groupings, red tipped blue arrows are independent variables lithology and soil orders, and the green numbers are sample sites (formations).
89 Figure 4.10: CANOCO redundancy analysis (RDA) triplot of Choctaw County, Oklahoma data, 13 samples, 3 species and 17 active environmental variables. Data was transformed by square root and a Monte Carlo with 199 permutations performed. The RDA-triplot of samples (County formations), species (three oak groupings), and environmental variables (lithology and soil order), since there are only 3 species the first two eigenvalues reported are canonical, the other two are not. Axes 1 and 2 had eigenvalues of 89.6% and 8.2%, respectively. Black arrows represent oak groupings, red tipped blue arrows are independent variables lithology and soil orders, and the green numbers are sample sites (formations).
90 Table 4.16: CANOCO Redundancy Analysis for All Counties and Each County Individually
Axes Total Variables 1 2 3 4 Variance Eigenvalues 0.582 0.207 0.142 0.069 1.000 Species-environment correlations 0.899 0.862 0.000 Cumulative % variance species Figure 4.7 58.2 79.0 data All Cumulative % variance species- Counties 73.8 environment relation Sum of all eigenvalues 1.000 Sum of all Canonical eigenvalues 0.790
Eigenvalues 0.722 0.139 0.094 0.045 1.000
Species-environment correlations 0.967 0.782 0.000 Figure 4.8 Cumulative % variance species 72.2 86.1 Coke data County Cumulative % variance species- 83.9 environment relation Sum of all eigenvalues 1.000 Sum of all Canonical eigenvalues 0.861
Eigenvalues 0.806 0.079 0.109 0.006 1.000
Species-environment correlations 0.939 0.961 0.000 Figure 4.9 Cumulative % variance species 80.6 88.5 Denton data County Cumulative % variance species- 91.0 environment relation Sum of all eigenvalues 1.000 Sum of all Canonical eigenvalues 0.885
Eigenvalues 0.896 0.082 0.022 0.000 1.000
Species-environment correlations 0.988 0.994 0.000 Figure Cumulative % variance species 4.10 89.6 97.9 Choctaw data County Cumulative % variance species- 91.6 environment relation Sum of all eigenvalues 1.000 Sum of all Canonical eigenvalues 0.978
91 Analysis Summary
In summary, all types of oak tree coverage on geologic formations for Coke,
Denton, and Choctaw are 30.9, 29.3, and 38.6% respectively, while all types of oak tree coverage on soil orders for Coke, Denton, and Choctaw are 31.1, 33.6, and 36.6% respectively. Rainfall is highest for Choctaw and lowest for Coke County. The sand, shale, and clay rich Dockum Group in Coke County supports the highest oak coverage with 50.2%. In Denton County the calcareous and clay rich Goodland carries the largest percentage (52.0%), and in Choctaw County the sand and clay rich Tenmile/Stanley
Formation supports nearly 85% oak land cover. Mollisols are the dominant soil order in
Coke County, but carry second to the lowest overall percentage of oak coverage. In
Denton the Alfisols are the dominant soil order, covering 40.5% of the county and supporting oak growth on 33.5%. Alfisols cover 52.5 % of Choctaw County while supporting 27.6% oak coverage. Formations with calcareous content greater than 50% carried the following percentage oak populations per county: Coke 9.9%, Denton 1.6%, and Choctaw 1.0%. Formations with calcareous content greater than 30%, but less than
50% carried the following oak populations per county: Coke 12.8%, Denton 13.1%, and
Choctaw 7.7%. Formations with calcareous content less than 30% carried the following oak populations respectively: Coke 18.1%, Denton 16.2%, and Choctaw 28.9%. In all counties the formations having calcareous content less than 30% carried the greatest populations of oaks.
Finally, with respect to RDA and graphic evaluation, all three counties exhibited varied correlations with respect to Quercus reflecting the distributions bedrock and soil orders found in each county. Sandy outcrops tended to be more positively correlated in
92 all three counties with lowland oaks and needle-leaf evergreen and oaks. This
distribution may be as a result of the oaks being found in stream valleys and low lying
areas where sand would accumulate due to stream erosion, transport and deposition.
Calcareous outcrops generally had a more positive correlation with upland oaks
landcover. However in Texas in inclusion of Mesquite in the Code 22 oaks classification
most likely exaggerated the actual presence of oaks. Needle-leaf evergreen and oaks
are positively correlated with shale outcrop in all three counties. Consequently, the
CANOCO Redundancy Analysis generally supports the interpretation of the data
obtained from the frequency tables, and GIS analysis presented earlier in this chapter.
93 CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
According to Hall and Valastro (1995) during the last glacial maximum (22,000-
12,500 years ago) the southwestern part of the Great Plains in central Texas was
probably covered by composite-rich grassland, with only local populations of Pinyon
pine and deciduous trees confined to stream valleys. Pollen data indicates that the first
oaks appeared some 5000 years ago. Oak coverage, according to Hall and Valastro
has been associated with the sandy deposits, such as the Woodbine formation
underlying the Eastern Cross Timbers, and the Antlers Sandstone under the Western
Cross Timbers. Grasses of the Blackland and Grand Prairies have been traditionally
associated with the calcareous formations in between the sandy outcrops.
Temperature and precipitation classically influence the distribution and
robustness of vegetation distribution. A visual examination of the climate data collected
for this research indicates with respect to the three county study that rainfall is highest for Choctaw and lowest for Coke County. Similarly Coke has the lowest number of oak species (6) while Choctaw has (19) species of oak identified throughout the county.
Rainfall appears to exert more of an influence on the number of Quercus species per county than did temperature. The average annual temperature variation between counties is only 2.9ºF. Future researchers may devise additional methods for examining the relationships between Quercus distribution and the many aspects of climate.
Nevertheless, in the North Central Texas and southeastern Oklahoma physiographic areas, geology plays a more interesting role than climate as an influence on the geosystem and the distribution of the species Quercus.
94 Does the bedrock lithology have an influence on the distribution of oak landcover in the three county study areas? Data from GIS ArcMap, frequency tables, and analysis using CANOCO RDA indicate that correlations do exist. Formations with calcareous content greater than 50 percent carried the following percentage of oak populations per county: Coke 9.9%, Denton 1.6%, and Choctaw 1.04%. Formations with calcareous content less than 30% carried the following oak populations respectively: Coke 18.12%,
Denton 16.2%, and Choctaw 28.9%. In all counties formations having calcareous content less than 30 percent generally carried the highest populations of oaks. The sand, shale, and clay rich Dockum Group in Coke County supports the highest oak coverage with 50.2%, while in Choctaw County the sand and clay rich Tenmile/Stanley
Formation supports nearly 85% oak land cover.
A noticeable exception to the occurrence of high percentages of oak coverage on sandy formations is in Denton County where the calcareous and clay rich Goodland carries the largest percentage of approximately 52%. However, the largest outcrop of
Goodland is found in the valley carved by Clear Creek in northwestern corner of Denton
County. Larger percentages of oak may be due to the availability of water from the nearby stream and it may be possible for the oaks to send their roots down through fractures in the thin layer of Goodland to tap the water in the underlying Antler
Sandstone Further sands eroded from the upper reach of Clear Creek and deposited along the banks of the stream may provide suitable growing habitat for the oaks on top of the Goodland. Blackjack oak have overall greater root development than Post oak.
Seedling Post oak has an especially thick taproot in the early sages of development
(Stransky, 990). Porous sands promote greater root depths, and if the rock is chalk or
95 soft, local root penetration may occur (Crow, 2005).
There are several possible explanations for the higher concentrations landcover including oaks on calcareous formations in Denton County. Before man populated the region, natural seasonal lightning fires would burn off the prairies, and discourage the spread of hardwoods from the sandy deposits onto the calcareous formations. Fire worked both in favor and against the distribution of oaks. Great quantities of fuel and occasional hot fires killed young trees to the ground-line, clearing the way for grasses to be the climax dominants. Small fires with limited fuel, favor the post oak and blackjack oak rather than the grasses (Dyksterhuis, 1948). Finally, surface erosion has left outliers for Woodbine Sandstone on the Duck Creek limestone that supports remnant oak forests.
Settlement patterns of the North Central Texas region indicate that the early settlers crossed over the Blackland Prairie and started clearing and farming in the
Eastern Cross Timbers. Early settlers tended to settle on the edges of the Cross
Timbers where they could have easy access to timber for fire and construction while farming and watching their cattle graze on the prairies. Eventually they realize that the
Prairie soils were better suited for farming. The arrival of the railroads in the 1870’s and
80’s, brought plowing implements and farmers could take advantage of the rich prairie
(Hayward and Yelderman, 1991).
Humans tend to develop flat areas, and avoid the steeper slopes for building and farming. Formations with irregular slope tend to support more oaks and fewer grasses.
Human intervention, including the establishment of artificial political and social boundaries which effected choices in land surface alteration such as, plowing prairies
96 and clearing forest for cropland, cattle grazing. In addition fire control has altered the natural distribution of vegetation in all counties. Cultural activities, such as building fences, asserts an influence on distribution by trapping seeds carried by wind and birds, therefore oak and other trees grow along fence rows across prairies. Humans have planted oaks on calcareous formations where they would not naturally occur. Counties with less urbanization, Coke and Choctaw, tend to have less fuzzy boundaries for oak distribution.
Various natural reasons exist for the distribution of oaks. Formations containing higher concentrations of sand than calcareous lithologies generally support more oaks.
Some formations that mainly calcareous such as the Goodland/Walnut Clay undivided, are relatively thin, 13 to 20 feet, in parts of Denton County and are underlain by the
Antler sand below. The root system of the oaks extends into the underlying sands and clay for water and nourishment. Wind blows sand and silt into the crevasses in limestone and oaks are often seen growing in this unique environment. Deep, well developed soil profiles on calcareous formations will support oak growth. Another natural support for oaks is outliers of Woodbine Sandstone on the calcareous Blackland and Grand Prairie. These erosional remnants of the Woodbine support islands of oaks on the grasslands. Choctaw County has the highest rainfall and the deepest soil profiles of the three counties. This is similar to the eastern part of the United States where there is more rainfall and generally deeper soils, the oaks are less dependent on the underlying geology.
What soil order types support the communities of oak growth? Mollisols are extensive in prairie regions and are characterized by a thick, dark (organic rich) surface
97 horizon. This surface horizon, known as a mollic epipedon results from the long-term addition of organic materials derived from plant roots. Calcareous Mollisols covering
78.6% of Coke County, but carry the second lowest overall percent of oak coverage for the five soil orders, at 30.1%. Alfisols are moderately leached soils that have relatively high native fertility; the soils are generally well developed, and may also contain subsurface horizons in which clay and carbonates have accumulated. In Denton County the Alfisols are the dominant soil order, covering 40.5% of the county while supporting
33.5% oak coverage. Alfisols cover 52.5 % of Choctaw County while supporting 27.6% oak coverage.
Finally, with respect to RDA and graphic evaluation, all three counties exhibited slightly different correlations with respect to Quercus versus the underlying lithogies. In
Choctaw County, Oklahoma the upland oaks tend to be more positively correlated with soil orders Alfisol and Vertisol. In the northeast part of the county where soil order
Ultisols formed, upland oaks grow mixed with pine, hickory and cedar. Lowland oaks are positively correlated to marl, clay, and tuff and are found in the valleys with soil orders Entisol, Mollisol, and Alfisol/Vertisol/Mollisol.
In Coke County both upland and lowland oaks are positively correlated with the soil order Mollisol which covers 78.6% of the county. The RDA analysis shows a relation between Mollisols and both upland and lowland oaks. Weathering of the Antlers sandstone creates a blanket of sand on top of the underlying gypsum rich
Whitehorse/Cloud Chief. Data resolution of 30 meters may give misleading results by incorrectly classifying soil orders and area of bedrock. Consequently the sandstone formation appears to have a false negative association with the oaks, while the gypsum
98 rich formation has a false positive. The soil order, Alfisols which formed on sandy formations in Denton and Choctaw Counties is absent over the sandstone formations in the southern half of Coke County. The underlying sandy bedrock is present but overlain with Mollisols
Upland oaks in Denton County are positively correlated with soil orders Vertisol and Mollisol. The upland oaks are positively correlated with clay and calcareous bedrock. This association between calcareous bedrock and upland oaks may be exaggerated by the decision of Texas GAP to include Mesquite in the Code 22 classification as discussed in chapters 3 and 4. There are certainly large numbers of
Mesquites growing on the limestone formations but a limited number of oaks. The
Mesquites are spread by grazing cattle, and a good example of the Mesquite covered pasture is just south of Denton on I-35W. Pilots Knob is a Denton County Landmark that is actually an outlier of Woodbine Sandstone capped with post and blackjack and is surrounded by grazing pasture covered with mesquite. Lowland oaks are positively correlated with the soil order Mollisol/Vertisol, and bedrock formations of sandstone, silt and clay. Finally, the needle-leaf evergreen and oaks are positively correlated with shale. Observations of the needle-leaf evergreen and oaks distributions in Denton
County do occur on clay and shales.
Recommendations
This research provides a base for further studies of the distribution of Oaks, not only in Denton, Coke and Choctaw Counties, but also in all of Texas and Oklahoma. Hill
1901 described the Blackland and Grand Prairies as treeless grasslands and the
99 Eastern and western Cross Timbers as nearly solid oak forests. Oak distribution is
becoming increasingly fragmented due to urbanization in the North Central Texas
region, 75.8 square kilometers of the Woodbine Sandstone are currently developed with
more urban areas being added daily (Table A14). Total effects on habitat destruction of
the Cross Timbers on the Woodbine Sandstone are presumable but unknown. For
example early explorers in the region described the Eastern Cross Timbers as at times
an impenetrable barrier of Post-oak and blackjack and in other areas discontinuous forests interspersed with open glades. Statistics from this study indicate that the
Woodbine has little better than 32% oak coverage. The term Eastern Cross Timber is
not generally recognized by the public. As the North Central Texas region continues to
develop, understanding the geosystem could not only help preserve the ecosystem, but
benefit the area’s development by introducing techniques that would preserve oak
habitat of this naturally evolved system designed to survive in the drought stressed
Texas and Oklahoma georegion.
Most cities have tree preservation ordinances which promote the preservation of
mature trees, the protection of trees during construction, mitigation for trees removed, facilitation of site design and improvement of environmental conditions and to increase
property values. Educating developers to reduce the footprint of homes build on the
Cross Timbers by building homes vertically versus the more common sprawling ranch
style requires less cost for tree removal and subsequent mitigation, and reduces
erosion. New homes should be constructed with a view over the canopy instead of
classic ranch style. Naturally drought tolerant Blackjack and Post Oak landscape reduce
the cost of future landscape maintenance. According to (Wittwer, et al, 2007) oaks trees
100 can be successfully raised from acorns, by the duplication of natural processes. The
Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service recommends two methods for establishing oaks: grow your own seedlings and then plant, or for suitable sites directly seed the acorns. Encouraging existing homeowners to landscape with Blackjack and Post Oaks on the formations where those trees would naturally grow, conserves water and reduced the demand on reservoirs for landscape and gardening.
Political boundaries have fragmented the natural limits of oak ecosystems; maintenance and restoration based on the georegion concept should revitalize the ecological integrity of the Quercus community. Georegion maps should be used to develop criteria for the preservation of biological habitat, management of water quality standards, monitoring human impacts, and the development of ecosystem maintenance programs.
The formations historically associated with oaks such as the Eastern Cross
Timbers are currently carrying a much lower ratio of oaks, while prairies and grasslands are carrying a slightly higher oak ratio. The original 30 meter data utilized in this study only permitted the classification of land cover into classes such as forests with upland oaks, lowland oaks, and conifers within their general class. Further studies, using one meter data, would enable a better record of species distribution, and possibly permit the differentiation of oaks so that individual species could be observed. Denton County is currently experiencing the decimation of oaks due to disease according to John Cooper,
Extension Horticulturist for Denton County since 1985 (Personal Communication, 2007).
The use of one meter data may provide the resolution needed to track the changes of distribution for various oak species as well as to determine the associated causes.
101 Examining the role of aspect is also recommended for further study of the Quercus; slope appears to have a significant affect on Oak distribution in the Texas and
Oklahoma.
Finally, data from my research shows a distribution of Quercus over approximately 30.9% of Coke County, outside of the traditional boundaries for the Cross
Timbers. Therefore, it is recommended future studies re-examine the traditional boundaries of both the Eastern and Western Cross Timbers. Areas of oak distribution in
North Central Texas and Oklahoma have special circumstances of lithologies, subsurface water levels and undoubtedly other explanations or combinations of explanations not revealed by this study. The oaks of the Central, North Central Texas and Oklahoma are part of a unique georegion that needs further study.
102 APPENDIX
SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES
103 Table A1: Choctaw County, Oklahoma Monthly and Annual Precipitation (inches) 1948-1999
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 1948 3.5 4.3 2.9 2.8 14.0 2.1 5.4 2.9 1.0 2.8 1.0 2.1 44.8 1949 14.4 3.9 4.6 5.0 5.6 7.2 2.5 0.8 3.3 8.1 0.7 4.1 60.1 1950 8.5 6.5 1.3 4.6 7.1 1.6 14.9 4.9 7.9 1.7 0.5 0.0 59.4 1951 1.7 5.6 0.7 4.4 2.7 12.1 3.0 1.7 4.7 3.9 2.4 1.0 43.7 1952 1.3 3.1 5.0 10.4 5.4 2.6 3.8 1.8 1.9 0.2 5.9 2.7 44.1 1953 2.1 1.0 7.0 8.8 5.2 1.0 8.3 1.6 2.9 1.6 3.1 3.6 46.0 1954 4.0 0.9 0.6 3.1 9.7 1.1 0.0 3.4 5.3 17.7 1.1 2.3 49.1 1955 1.7 2.5 4.8 2.6 5.2 0.8 2.4 8.4 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.8 30.3 1956 2.4 4.7 1.8 3.4 2.1 2.6 1.4 0.9 0.1 1.6 4.0 2.1 27.1 1957 3.4 3.0 5.6 11.6 9.9 7.5 2.9 4.7 12.9 2.6 8.5 2.7 75.2 1958 4.4 1.9 4.8 4.4 3.4 4.0 5.2 7.7 2.9 1.0 2.3 1.6 43.6 1959 0.7 1.3 3.2 1.5 4.1 5.8 10.5 6.0 2.5 5.5 1.7 4.1 46.8 1960 3.2 2.6 2.0 2.1 7.2 2.0 3.3 4.7 8.6 5.8 1.6 6.5 49.4 1961 0.6 3.1 3.7 1.5 4.9 3.5 6.3 3.2 3.9 2.4 5.2 3.6 41.7 1962 3.1 2.6 3.7 4.0 1.7 12.0 1.9 3.8 8.7 6.3 3.5 0.9 52.0 1963 1.4 0.3 4.5 6.7 0.3 3.6 7.0 0.4 0.2 0.4 2.1 2.8 29.8 1964 0.9 2.8 5.8 6.5 4.8 3.5 0.4 10.5 5.9 1.5 4.5 2.1 49.2 1965 3.5 5.1 1.1 2.7 5.9 4.4 0.2 3.5 7.9 0.8 ~ 1.7 ~ 1966 1.6 3.3 0.9 9.8 3.3 1.2 2.0 6.8 6.4 1.2 1.1 3.4 40.9 1967 0.8 1.5 3.8 6.2 9.8 4.8 2.9 1.8 4.9 4.2 1.2 5.0 46.8 1968 3.9 1.4 8.2 4.5 13.6 8.4 4.2 1.1 9.2 2.1 4.5 2.9 64.0 1969 3.4 4.3 5.4 2.9 12.3 3.3 0.7 0.3 3.2 6.8 1.1 4.6 48.3 1970 1.2 6.7 4.4 3.9 1.6 5.7 1.0 1.8 9.5 4.7 1.4 1.6 43.4 1971 1.7 2.2 1.2 2.5 4.6 2.1 5.8 4.1 2.6 8.5 2.1 12.0 49.3 1972 0.9 0.8 0.9 3.7 3.6 2.0 1.1 2.0 4.2 12.1 4.7 2.3 38.5 1973 2.8 3.2 8.8 5.9 4.4 9.4 2.4 4.3 11.9 5.6 5.3 2.9 66.9 1974 1.8 1.3 2.0 5.1 4.2 10.2 0.7 7.9 8.8 5.5 6.9 3.0 57.3 1975 2.3 4.5 3.7 1.7 9.3 5.7 1.0 0.9 3.2 0.2 2.4 2.6 37.5 1976 0.3 1.1 4.3 5.9 5.0 5.0 5.7 0.6 3.0 6.2 1.0 2.7 40.8 1977 3.8 2.7 7.0 5.8 4.0 3.2 2.1 4.9 1.5 0.3 4.2 1.3 40.7 1978 3.1 3.5 3.3 2.4 3.5 2.4 0.8 1.9 0.3 0.1 10.1 2.8 34.2 1979 2.4 4.1 4.8 3.1 10.6 2.5 3.4 2.0 1.8 5.4 2.2 4.1 46.3 1980 2.2 2.2 1.2 2.5 7.8 3.4 0.6 0.4 9.8 3.6 1.8 2.2 37.5 1981 0.6 2.8 3.6 3.4 6.1 6.1 1.1 2.7 0.5 8.7 5.3 0.3 41.2 1982 4.5 2.6 1.7 3.0 11.2 7.0 2.8 4.2 0.1 2.4 4.0 6.4 49.7 1983 0.7 6.0 5.3 2.7 4.1 5.5 2.5 1.5 1.9 3.9 3.4 3.7 41.2 1984 2.6 5.0 5.8 2.7 5.6 2.0 7.8 1.3 4.7 9.7 9.2 6.2 62.6
104 Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 1985 2.5 2.5 6.0 4.2 6.0 5.0 3.5 0.4 2.2 7.5 9.3 2.0 51.0 1986 0.1 5.1 2.1 6.3 7.2 5.1 0.7 1.9 3.8 4.8 5.4 2.0 44.5 1987 1.4 4.2 3.4 0.3 4.5 5.2 1.8 0.6 5.1 4.2 6.6 6.2 43.3 1988 1.1 3.7 6.0 3.4 0.8 1.4 2.6 1.0 1.6 3.0 5.2 3.5 33.3 1989 4.7 5.1 5.5 2.0 9.5 6.1 5.9 3.3 4.5 1.4 0.5 1.1 49.7 1990 5.1 6.5 7.8 7.6 8.9 2.7 5.1 0.6 5.1 3.7 2.9 4.1 60.0 1991 3.7 2.6 4.4 8.3 6.6 5.4 4.6 4.1 1.2 11.2 5.3 7.4 64.7 1992 2.8 3.8 3.9 2.8 3.6 10.0 7.4 1.1 6.9 0.4 4.6 6.6 53.9 1993 3.3 3.8 4.7 3.6 5.8 2.4 0.1 3.0 3.3 8.0 3.1 5.3 46.3 1994 3.3 3.2 4.1 5.5 5.1 1.1 5.7 3.5 2.8 5.8 7.0 3.4 50.6 1995 5.0 0.6 3.1 4.7 8.2 2.9 2.6 1.9 6.1 1.5 1.1 2.6 40.3 1996 2.8 0.3 2.8 2.9 3.8 5.1 9.8 9.4 7.5 7.0 9.3 1.6 62.2 1997 0.8 7.1 5.2 7.0 3.9 6.7 0.3 2.9 0.8 4.6 4.3 5.6 49.3 1998 6.5 3.7 4.9 2.0 2.4 2.1 1.1 0.9 5.2 7.4 5.1 6.4 47.5 1999 2.8 1.0 2.0 2.8 4.4 6.4 0.4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Avg 2.8 3.2 3.9 4.4 5.8 4.5 3.5 3.1 4.4 4.4 3.8 3.4 47.2
Source: From the National Climate Data Center.
105 Table A2: Denton County, Texas Monthly and Annual Precipitation (inches) 1949-2002
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 1949 5.1 2.3 2.8 1.4 7.7 3.0 2.4 3.5 3.9 7.1 0.0 1.8 31.0
1950 4.2 3.3 1.6 3.9 5.3 6.4 5.8 2.4 4.6 0.1 0.1 0.5 38.2 1951 0.0 2.9 1.0 1.9 4.0 5.6 2.6 0.6 2.2 2.0 1.1 0.3 24.1
1952 0.5 1.7 2.4 7.1 4.9 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.1 5.1 2.2 25.8 1953 0.5 1.7 3.4 8.3 5.8 1.2 1.9 1.5 1.1 4.6 4.0 1.1 35.2
1954 2.4 0.1 0.5 5.1 3.9 3.1 0.7 1.6 1.8 3.1 0.8 1.9 25.0 1955 1.2 1.8 1.5 1.8 5.5 5.7 0.7 0.8 3.0 0.8 0.1 0.9 23.7
1956 1.0 2.6 0.3 0.2 2.4 0.4 0.5 1.6 0.0 1.8 3.1 2.9 16.7 1957 1.1 3.1 3.3 16.5 16.5 4.8 0.0 0.3 2.7 3.2 5.9 1.4 58.8
1958 1.9 0.6 4.2 6.7 5.0 2.6 2.6 1.9 2.9 1.3 1.6 0.8 32.0 1959 0.3 1.4 1.0 0.6 3.5 5.8 3.3 0.9 2.7 7.1 1.7 2.4 30.5
1960 1.8 1.2 0.9 1.5 4.1 1.1 4.2 3.5 1.1 1.7 0.3 3.3 24.6 1961 3.3 3.0 4.3 0.1 2.7 5.1 1.6 0.6 5.2 2.0 2.5 1.9 32.2
1962 0.6 1.3 2.6 3.8 1.1 7.2 4.6 2.1 12.4 2.8 4.3 0.9 43.5 1963 0.3 0.1 0.3 5.2 2.4 0.6 3.2 0.3 0.9 1.9 1.7 1.1 18.0
1964 2.4 1.8 4.5 6.3 6.9 0.7 0.9 3.7 10.8 0.4 7.2 1.2 46.7 1965 2.8 4.0 1.0 1.5 6.6 3.6 0.8 3.1 7.0 1.7 2.1 1.8 35.8
1966 1.6 2.6 1.2 10.3 0.9 5.3 0.9 4.0 4.4 0.7 0.8 2.3 35.0 1967 0.0 1.3 1.9 3.7 6.3 1.4 1.5 0.3 6.1 3.4 1.3 2.4 29.6
1968 4.0 1.8 7.1 4.1 4.9 4.0 3.1 2.9 9.0 2.9 3.8 1.5 49.0 1969 1.6 3.0 5.1 3.9 6.8 3.8 0.6 2.9 2.2 5.9 0.8 5.2 41.8
1970 0.7 6.1 4.3 7.6 5.4 1.5 1.0 1.3 13.6 1.7 0.5 0.9 44.5 1971 0.5 1.5 0.7 1.9 4.0 1.0 5.3 3.9 4.1 10.1 2.9 8.4 44.1
1972 0.6 1.2 1.1 3.1 1.2 2.0 0.5 4.3 3.0 6.7 3.3 0.6 27.5 1973 4.7 2.6 4.0 4.8 5.5 7.7 8.8 2.0 8.0 7.6 2.5 0.9 57.2
1974 0.7 1.4 0.8 6.7 1.7 5.5 0.9 4.6 7.3 9.5 3.0 1.4 43.4 1975 4.0 1.0 1.5 6.6 3.6 0.8 3.1 7.0 1.7 2.1 1.8 1.6 33.9
1976 2.6 1.2 10.3 0.9 5.3 0.9 4.0 4.4 0.7 0.8 2.3 2.1 32.4 1977 1.3 1.9 3.7 6.3 1.4 1.5 0.3 6.1 3.4 1.3 2.4 0.5 27.7
1978 1.8 7.1 4.1 4.9 4.0 3.1 2.9 9.0 2.9 3.8 1.5 0.9 28.2
1979 3.0 5.1 3.9 6.8 3.8 0.6 2.9 2.2 5.9 0.8 5.2 2.7 33.6
106 Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 1980 6.1 4.3 7.6 5.4 1.5 1.0 1.3 13.6 1.7 0.5 0.9 2.0 27.7 1981 1.5 0.7 1.9 4.0 1.0 5.3 3.9 4.1 10.1 2.9 8.4 0.1 56.9
1982 1.2 1.1 3.1 1.2 2.0 0.5 4.3 3.0 6.7 3.3 0.6 3.5 48.2 1983 2.6 4.0 4.8 5.5 7.7 8.8 0.0 8.0 7.6 2.5 0.9 0.6 29.4
1984 1.4 0.8 6.7 1.7 5.5 0.9 4.6 7.3 9.5 3.0 1.4 5.5 30.1 1985 3.5 2.4 3.7 8.8 3.8 3.3 1.9 1.6 0.1 1.6 1.6 0.7 33.2
1986 0.6 2.6 6.5 7.5 3.2 3.0 1.5 1.7 3.4 0.4 2.1 1.6 45.4 1987 2.4 7.4 2.9 1.1 1.7 1.4 4.2 0.7 1.8 1.3 0.5 4.9 40.7
1988 3.1 2.6 3.6 5.8 1.0 1.9 1.9 1.3 0.1 3.7 0.9 3.8 29.0 1989 3.0 5.6 3.2 5.6 1.2 1.7 3.5 1.3 2.9 0.3 2.7 0.4 36.9
1990 1.8 1.5 1.3 3.3 2.2 0.2 0.3 8.1 3.8 1.3 2.0 1.8 43.1 1991 1.7 3.0 3.1 8.7 3.3 4.3 1.2 5.5 23.5 2.0 0.1 7.4 36.9
1992 2.5 1.3 2.2 20.9 4.7 3.1 0.7 0.3 1.7 3.5 3.5 5.5 34.3 1993 1.0 2.7 0.5 5.1 1.2 2.0 2.2 0.1 9.6 2.9 0.6 3.2 39.9
1994 2.4 3.3 0.9 2.7 1.4 0.7 4.9 0.2 4.9 2.2 5.5 2.2 55.4 1995 0.8 3.7 5.6 3.7 4.2 3.0 0.3 4.2 4.5 1.4 0.7 1.7 35.3
1996 8.7 1.2 5.8 7.5 4.5 2.3 2.9 7.7 2.6 2.9 1.6 0.4 36.3 1997 3.6 2.9 0.0 10.2 3.7 1.8 1.6 4.6 0.9 4.6 4.9 5.1 40.5
1998 0.9 2.1 2.2 1.2 5.6 2.5 0.2 6.1 1.2 2.4 3.8 4.1 35.2 1999 3.7 4.1 0.8 5.3 8.3 2.7 0.7 4.6 1.8 0.5 0.4 2.7 27.7
2000 3.2 6.5 7.4 5.3 1.5 2.6 3.9 0.5 1.5 4.4 1.8 3.7 38.7 2001 1.2 0.8 3.6 4.8 2.6 3.0 5.4 4.2 0.0 2.0 7.4 2.1 43.5
2002 2.5 1.8 1.7 6.2 4.3 1.8 1.1 3.7 0.7 2.4 5.5 4.4 42.5 Avg 2.1 2.5 3.0 5.1 4.1 2.8 2.3 3.3 4.4 2.8 2.4 2.3 36.2
Source: From the National Climate Data Center.
107 Table A3: Coke County, Texas Monthly and Annual Precipitation (inches) 1949-1999
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 1949 1.8 ~ 0.9 ~ ~ ~ 0.4 2.3 3.0 2.3 0.0 1.0 ~
1950 0.4 0.5 0.0 2.7 3.2 0.0 3.1 0.6 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.1
1951 0.0 1.2 1.0 0.3 3.0 4.5 0.7 2.9 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 15.6
1952 0.3 0.2 0.6 2.3 1.6 0.3 0.6 0.0 1.5 0.0 2.5 0.7 10.5 1953 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.4 2.5 0.0 0.7 2.5 0.9 4.1 0.1 0.0 13.2
1954 0.0 0.0 ~ 7.1 5.8 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.1 ~ 1955 0.4 1.3 0.0 0.6 3.8 1.7 1.3 0.0 2.2 ~ ~ ~ ~
1956 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.7 4.2 0.0 0.7 9.2 1957 ~ 1.4 0.4 2.4 5.1 3.4 1.5 0.0 1.6 9.7 ~ ~ ~
1958 1.8 2.8 2.1 2.9 1.8 0.3 0.0 2.4 3.4 2.1 0.7 0.0 20.2 1959 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.9 3.5 3.8 2.9 0.3 0.6 5.0 0.4 2.0 20.0
1960 2.1 0.6 0.1 2.4 1.7 1.2 5.3 0.2 1.3 4.6 0.1 2.4 21.8 1961 3.5 1.1 0.5 0.0 2.8 5.4 6.2 0.2 6.5 2.4 3.0 0.0 31.4
1962 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.6 0.1 1.2 2.4 1.8 1.4 3.3 0.5 0.9 14.0 1963 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.7 3.5 3.4 0.0 0.9 1.7 1.3 2.6 0.5 16.4
1964 1.5 1.7 0.9 0.9 2.8 2.1 0.3 2.4 3.1 0.6 2.3 0.2 18.7 1965 1.2 2.3 ~ 0.8 5.6 3.3 0.4 2.4 1.2 1.9 0.6 1.2 ~
1966 0.7 0.5 0.7 4.2 2.5 1.7 0.1 2.0 4.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 20.0 1967 0.0 0.3 1.0 2.1 3.0 1.2 3.5 1.0 4.2 1.0 3.2 1.4 21.7
1968 2.2 1.9 3.2 3.6 5.2 2.4 1.6 1.6 1.4 0.1 4.0 0.3 27.4 1969 0.0 1.3 1.9 4.1 4.0 3.5 0.0 2.6 3.8 2.9 1.8 2.7 28.5
1970 0.1 1.5 3.5 1.4 ~ 2.3 0.0 0.2 4.3 0.8 0.0 0.3 14.4 1971 0.0 0.4 0.0 3.7 0.6 5.8 1.1 4.0 5.9 3.0 0.2 1.1 25.9
1972 0.0 0.2 0.1 1.4 2.3 4.4 1.1 5.9 9.5 5.2 0.3 0.0 30.4 1973 2.4 1.4 1.2 2.5 0.8 0.6 2.6 0.0 4.1 1.8 0.0 0.0 17.4
1974 0.2 0.5 0.5 1.6 2.3 2.0 0.4 4.8 12.6 7.7 1.6 1.6 35.8 1975 0.3 1.6 0.2 0.2 4.7 1.5 3.1 3.2 3.0 2.9 3.5 0.9 25.0
1976 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.7 2.6 0.5 6.6 0.4 2.9 5.4 0.4 0.2 22.3 1977 0.9 0.5 1.7 4.0 1.7 2.8 0.6 1.5 0.7 1.5 0.8 0.2 16.9
1978 0.3 2.1 0.1 1.1 4.8 0.5 0.9 2.4 2.0 1.1 1.4 0.0 16.6 1979 1.1 1.3 4.0 1.6 2.3 4.0 3.0 1.5 0.4 0.5 0.0 2.7 22.3
108 Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 1980 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.6 2.9 3.0 0.1 2.1 11.9 0.5 1.5 1.7 25.9 1981 1.0 0.3 2.4 5.0 4.6 3.0 2.8 1.3 2.9 9.6 0.4 0.0 33.0
1982 0.8 1.4 0.6 1.0 8.9 5.8 0.6 0.3 3.4 0.3 1.1 1.1 25.1 1983 2.7 0.1 1.0 0.2 1.6 1.8 1.5 0.1 0.2 3.4 1.6 0.1 14.2
1984 2.0 0.4 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.3 2.4 5.4 1.5 2.5 16.3 1985 0.5 1.1 1.2 1.3 4.6 3.0 2.2 0.0 1.2 3.8 0.9 0.0 19.7
1986 0.0 3.0 0.4 0.7 6.4 4.0 0.5 6.7 3.5 8.4 1.8 2.3 37.6 1987 0.3 3.9 1.7 0.8 8.6 3.2 0.1 5.4 2.1 0.8 0.5 3.6 30.9
1988 0.1 0.3 0.7 2.5 3.2 2.6 3.0 0.2 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.7 16.6 1989 0.6 2.9 0.8 0.2 3.1 7.8 0.2 0.6 3.5 0.7 0.4 0.3 21.0
1990 0.4 2.3 2.4 3.0 3.2 1.2 3.6 3.4 4.2 3.1 1.5 0.7 28.9 1991 2.9 0.3 0.3 0.1 3.0 6.8 2.2 4.4 6.9 0.9 0.3 4.9 33.0
1992 2.4 4.7 1.3 ~ 2.5 6.4 0.8 2.5 0.7 0.0 1.4 0.6 23.2 1993 0.9 1.0 ~ 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.4 0.9 1.8 1.7 0.4 0.5 ~
1994 1.8 1.3 0.0 1.2 8.4 0.6 0.9 0.5 5.0 1.8 2.6 0.9 24.9 1995 1.0 0.5 ~ 2.8 4.7 1.8 1.1 3.9 2.4 0.4 1.8 0.1 ~
1996 0.1 0.1 0.5 3.4 0.7 1.8 1.4 7.0 6.1 2.2 2.9 0.0 26.1 1997 0.1 4.2 1.2 4.8 2.2 4.4 0.1 1.9 0.0 1.5 0.9 1.9 23.2
1998 0.2 0.4 2.1 0.0 2.0 1.5 0.3 3.1 0.1 1.2 2.6 0.8 14.5 1999 0.6 0.0 2.3 1.6 2.3 2.3 0.2 0.0 ~ 1.3 0.0 0.1 10.6 Avg 0.8 1.1 1.0 1.9 3.3 2.5 1.5 1.9 3.1 2.6 1.1 0.9 21.2
Source: From the National Climate Data Center.
109 Table A4: Choctaw County, Oklahoma Monthly and Average Annual Temperature (°F)
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 1948 36.0 43.6 51.1 65.4 70.9 81.0 80.0 81.7 75.6 63.5 51.8 45.6 62.2
1949 38.0 43.8 52.2 61.7 72.5 77.0 81.0 80.6 72.7 62.5 54.8 46.6 62.0 1950 46.0 49.5 53.4 62.8 72.5 79.0 79.0 79.2 72.3 68.9 51.2 43.1 63.1
1951 44.0 45.9 51.5 62.3 69.1 79.0 ~ 87.5 76.6 66.2 48.3 46.2 ~ 1952 52.0 51.4 52.7 60.5 71.4 83.0 84.0 85.7 76.8 61.3 51.8 43.8 64.5
1953 46.0 46.5 59.3 60.1 70.8 85.0 82.0 81.5 71.2 68.0 51.9 43.4 63.8 1954 42.0 53.2 53.8 69.6 66.9 80.0 89.0 86.7 79.8 66.5 53.9 47.2 65.7
1955 45.0 44.1 55.8 67.8 73.3 77.0 84.0 80.8 ~ 65.2 53.3 44.9 ~ 1956 42.0 46.9 56.1 62.4 74.9 80.0 87.0 86.3 78.5 67.5 51.2 49.9 65.2
1957 42.0 51.4 52.4 62.2 71.6 79.0 85.0 82.3 73.1 60.8 49.6 50.6 63.3 1958 43.0 41.3 49.0 62.2 72.6 80.0 83.0 81.4 73.3 64.4 56.0 41.0 62.3
1959 37.0 45.0 54.3 62.1 73.9 78.0 80.0 81.8 68.9 64.4 48.2 48.5 61.8 1960 43.0 42.2 46.3 63.9 69.7 79.0 81.0 75.4 76.4 67.7 55.5 ~ ~
1961 33.0 49.0 58.4 61.6 55.8 75.0 80.0 78.8 74.9 63.1 49.6 44.4 60.3 1962 39.0 50.7 52.5 61.9 74.3 77.0 82.0 82.3 75.0 68.3 53.2 45.5 63.5
1963 37.0 42.9 59.5 67.2 73.2 81.0 83.0 83.3 77.7 72.5 55.5 38.8 64.3 1964 44.0 43.2 54.1 66.4 72.3 79.0 84.0 83.1 74.2 62.2 58.0 46.3 63.9
1965 47.0 44.6 46.3 68.3 72.2 77.0 83.0 81.4 76.8 64.1 ~ 50.5 ~ 1966 40.0 43.3 55.7 63.8 69.3 77.0 84.0 78.2 72.4 62.4 58.8 43.8 62.4
1967 47.0 44.8 61.9 67.2 69.5 79.0 79.0 79.5 71.8 64.9 53.9 45.5 63.7 1968 43.0 43.2 53.9 52.2 70.0 78.0 80.0 81.5 72.3 65.0 50.8 43.6 61.1
1969 45.0 46.3 48.7 64.5 71.0 78.0 86.0 83.5 76.4 64.8 53.0 45.8 63.6 1970 39.0 45.8 51.1 65.6 71.7 78.0 82.0 83.9 78.0 62.7 52.3 50.7 63.4
1971 45.0 45.6 53.5 64.0 69.1 81.0 82.0 78.5 76.5 68.8 54.3 50.3 64.1 1972 43.0 49.0 59.5 66.6 70.9 80.0 82.0 83.1 79.2 65.1 47.1 41.0 63.9
1973 41.0 43.7 58.6 59.8 69.9 77.0 82.0 80.3 76.3 67.6 58.3 46.1 63.4 1974 42.0 48.5 61.1 64.9 74.9 76.0 84.0 80.2 ~ 65.6 53.6 44.3 ~
1975 47.0 43.2 51.3 63.2 70.2 78.0 82.0 82.7 73.0 64.4 55.1 46.2 63.0 1976 44.0 57.0 56.6 64.2 66.9 76.0 80.0 80.7 74.0 58.7 47.3 43.8 62.4
1977 34.0 47.8 55.7 65.6 73.4 80.0 85.0 81.9 79.0 66.4 55.9 46.2 64.2
110 Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 1978 33.0 34.7 51.7 64.9 71.5 78.0 86.0 83.3 79.8 66.0 56.3 ~ ~
1979 30.0 38.0 49.2 62.9 66.0 77.0 80.0 78.5 68.8 64.5 49.7 47.4 59.3 1980 44.0 44.0 54.0 57.7 72.1 81.0 86.0 85.6 77.4 58.1 49.8 46.2 63.0
1981 44.0 45.7 55.6 68.6 64.8 79.0 83.0 79.2 73.7 61.5 52.2 40.8 62.3 1982 42.0 41.7 58.7 60.6 72.0 76.0 82.0 82.8 74.4 64.0 53.8 48.2 63.0
1983 42.0 45.1 53.5 58.5 68.1 76.0 82.0 83.6 74.5 65.7 54.7 32.2 61.3 1984 38.0 48.9 52.8 61.7 70.6 80.0 81.0 81.2 72.6 65.0 52.7 52.8 63.1
1985 37.0 41.0 59.7 65.5 71.4 78.0 81.0 83.8 75.0 66.5 56.5 41.2 63.1 1986 47.0 49.1 58.4 65.2 70.3 79.0 85.0 81.5 77.4 64.4 51.1 44.3 64.4
1987 44.0 48.0 53.8 64.7 74.4 78.0 81.0 85.7 75.6 61.9 54.6 46.2 64.0 1988 40.0 46.3 52.6 62.5 71.1 80.0 84.0 84.5 77.7 63.5 55.5 46.6 63.7
1989 47.0 38.8 55.9 65.0 72.0 76.0 80.0 79.9 71.5 66.6 56.9 38.2 62.3 1990 50.0 50.2 56.1 62.8 69.4 81.0 81.0 82.4 78.6 62.9 58.2 42.4 64.6
1991 40.0 49.9 57.8 65.5 73.6 79.0 82.0 79.8 73.6 66.9 50.0 47.9 63.8 1992 44.0 52.6 57.4 63.7 68.8 76.0 80.0 76.7 73.4 65.7 50.4 45.1 62.8
1993 43.0 43.6 53.8 60.8 69.1 79.0 86.0 85.1 74.3 61.2 48.5 46.9 62.6 1994 42.0 45.1 57.1 64.6 69.1 81.0 81.0 79.7 73.5 65.0 55.5 47.2 63.4
1995 45.0 48.1 56.4 65.1 71.7 76.0 83.0 85.3 73.6 64.8 53.5 44.9 64.0 1996 41.0 50.9 51.4 63.0 74.4 78.0 82.0 77.8 71.4 64.3 51.2 47.8 62.8
1997 43.0 46.5 57.5 59.8 69.4 77.0 83.0 79.1 76.3 64.4 49.8 41.3 62.3 1998 44.0 46.8 48.6 61.0 73.9 81.0 89.0 86.5 81.4 66.7 57.4 45.4 65.1
1999 41.0 49.5 44.8 64.4 66.7 75.0 80.0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Avg 42.1 46.1 54.3 63.4 70.7 78.6 82.6 81.9 75.0 64.8 53.1 45.2 63.1
Source: From the National Climate Data Center.
111 Table A5: Denton County, Texas Monthly and Average Annual Temperature (°F)
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 1949 40 48 56 63 75 80 84 81 75 65 59 49 65
1950 49 53 55 64 73 79 ~ 81 ~ ~ 55 46 ~ 1951 46 49 57 65 71 79 85 89 79 69 51 49 66
1952 54 53 56 61 71 83 85 90 79 64 54 45 66 1953 51 49 60 62 71 86 84 84 ~ 72 55 47 ~
1954 ~ 57 ~ ~ 68 83 90 89 82 69 55 48 ~ 1955 45 48 58 69 76 77 84 85 80 68 56 48 66
1956 45 50 59 65 77 84 89 87 81 72 54 50 68 1957 43 53 52 61 71 80 87 86 76 63 51 52 65
1958 45 45 50 62 73 81 84 85 77 66 57 44 64 1959 44 49 ~ 64 75 80 81 83 79 65 49 49 ~
1960 44 44 48 66 71 81 83 82 78 69 58 43 64 1961 41 51 58 63 72 77 81 81 76 67 ~ 45 ~
1962 40 52 51 63 76 78 84 84 77 71 55 47 65 1963 37 48 59 70 74 82 86 87 79 74 59 40 66
1964 ~ 44 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1965 49 46 48 69 72 79 85 83 78 65 62 53 66
1966 41 47 59 65 71 79 85 81 75 65 61 46 64 1967 49 49 64 71 72 81 82 82 73 66 56 47 66
1968 44 45 55 66 73 79 81 83 75 68 54 47 64 1969 49 49 50 66 72 79 87 85 77 66 56 50 65
1970 42 50 52 67 72 79 83 84 78 64 55 54 65 1971 48 50 57 65 72 82 85 79 77 69 56 52 66
1972 45 51 63 70 73 82 83 83 80 67 49 44 66 1973 42 47 60 60 72 78 83 82 77 69 61 49 65
1974 45 54 64 68 77 78 85 81 69 67 55 46 66 1975 49 46 53 64 71 79 82 82 73 67 56 48 64
1976 46 58 60 65 68 77 80 82 74 58 48 44 63 1977 34 50 57 64 73 81 85 83 80 67 58 49 65
1978 34 38 55 67 74 81 88 83 79 67 57 46 64
1979 34 43 57 65 70 79 83 81 75 69 51 49 63
112 Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 1980 45 47 57 64 74 85 89 86 81 66 54 50 66 1981 46 50 58 70 70 79 84 83 76 66 57 48 65
1982 46 44 60 63 72 77 83 85 76 67 56 49 65 1983 45 49 ~ 61 70 77 82 85 76 66 57 ~ ~
1984 ~ ~ 57 64 74 82 84 83 74 67 55 53 ~ 1985 40 45 62 67 74 80 83 85 76 66 56 43 65
1986 48 52 60 66 72 81 87 83 79 65 53 46 66 1987 45 51 55 66 75 79 83 86 76 65 55 47 65
1988 41 48 57 65 72 79 84 86 77 64 57 48 65 1989 48 40 55 66 73 76 81 81 73 67 57 38 63
1990 50 52 57 63 72 82 81 83 78 65 58 42 65 1991 41 52 58 66 73 80 84 80 73 0 50 48 59
1992 45 53 57 64 69 77 82 78 75 67 51 48 64 1993 43 46 53 61 69 80 86 85 75 62 50 48 63
1994 43 46 57 64 70 81 81 82 74 66 56 48 64 1995 46 51 55 62 70 77 84 84 74 66 54 46 64
1997 43 48 57 59 69 78 84 82 79 66 50 44 63 1998 47 49 53 61 76 84 90 87 84 70 58 47 67
1999 48 56 55 67 72 81 86 90 77 68 62 50 68 2000 49 56 59 64 76 79 87 89 79 69 49 39 66
2001 43 49 52 68 75 80 88 85 74 65 60 49 66 2002 48 47 55 68 72 80 83 85 79 63 54 48 65 Avg 44 49 56 65 72 80 84 84 77 65 55 47 65
Source: From the National Climate Data Center.
113 Table A6: Coke County, Texas Monthly and Average Annual Temperature (°F)
Year Jan Feb Feb Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 1962 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 85 84 75 68 ~ 44 ~
1963 36 47 59 71 77 79 86 84 78 72 56 39 65 1964 43 43 ~ 67 75 81 86 86 76 64 56 46 ~
1965 ~ 43 ~ 68 72 80 85 82 77 65 60 50 ~ 1966 39 43 56 64 72 80 87 81 75 63 58 43 63
1967 45 48 64 72 73 83 84 81 71 64 54 43 65 1968 44 44 53 62 72 78 81 82 73 67 53 45 63
1969 47 49 46 65 70 81 87 85 75 64 53 49 64 1970 40 50 49 65 ~ 79 84 84 77 61 51 52 ~
1971 47 47 55 64 73 80 84 76 74 67 55 48 64 1972 45 49 61 70 71 80 82 79 78 65 47 44 64
1973 38 44 57 60 72 78 82 81 76 67 60 48 64 1974 45 50 64 66 76 81 84 79 68 ~ 53 45 65
1975 46 46 54 63 71 79 79 81 71 65 55 46 63 1976 43 54 57 65 ~ 80 78 81 74 58 47 44 ~
1977 37 49 55 63 74 81 84 85 82 67 55 48 65 1978 37 40 54 70 75 ~ 87 81 76 65 55 ~ ~
1979 34 44 56 65 70 78 83 81 77 70 51 ~ ~ 1980 45 46 53 64 72 83 88 85 77 64 50 48 65
1981 45 50 54 68 71 79 84 82 76 66 57 48 65 1982 44 44 59 64 71 78 83 85 78 ~ 55 ~ ~
1983 43 48 55 62 73 77 84 85 79 69 57 36 64 1984 41 50 56 64 76 84 85 85 75 64 54 49 65
1985 40 44 59 ~ 76 ~ 82 86 78 67 57 42 ~ 1986 47 53 ~ ~ 74 79 85 83 77 64 53 45 ~
1987 44 50 52 ~ 72 78 82 84 75 67 ~ 45 ~ 1988 41 46 55 65 72 80 82 84 75 67 57 47 64
1989 48 ~ 58 67 78 78 85 84 74 67 56 39 ~ 1990 49 53 57 65 72 87 81 80 77 65 58 44 66
1991 41 50 58 65 76 78 81 79 71 66 49 47 63
114 Year Jan Feb Feb Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 1992 44 51 59 64 69 78 83 78 76 66 52 47 64
1993 42 47 55 64 71 81 86 85 74 64 ~ 48 ~ 1994 45 46 57 65 71 83 85 84 73 66 55 47 65
1995 46 51 ~ 63 73 78 85 82 ~ 66 54 46 ~ 1996 43 51 52 64 81 83 86 82 73 64 54 47 65
1997 43 46 58 58 69 77 84 83 79 66 51 42 63 1998 48 49 53 64 80 86 87 ~ 80 69 58 46 ~
1999 49 54 56 66 74 80 85 ~ ~ 66 59 47 ~ Avg 43 48 56 65 73 80 84 82 76 66 54 46 64
Source: From the National Climate Data Center.
115 Table A7: Soil Survey of Choctaw County, Oklahoma, 1979
Name Order Soil Slope % 1 Alusa Alfisols Loam 0
2 Bernow Alfisols Fine sandy loam 1 to 3 3 Bernow Alfisols Fine sandy loam 3 to 6
4 Bernow-Romia Alfisols Complex 6 to 12 5 Bernow-Romia Alfisols Complex 2 to 8 eroded
6 Bernow, Bosville & Romia Alfisols 2 to 8 gullied 7 Boggy Entisols Fine sandy loam 0
8 Bosville Alfisols Fine sandy loam 1 to 4 9 Bosville Alfisols Fine sandy loam 4 to 8
10 Bosville Alfisols Fine sandy loam 3 to 8 eroded 11 Bosville Alfisols Fine sandy loam 8 to 15
12 Burleson Vertisols Clay 1 to 3 13 Caspiana Mollisols Silt loam 0
14 Clebit-Tuskahoma Inceptisols Association steep 15 Coushatta Inceptisols Silty clay loam 0
16 Dela Entisols Fine sandy loam 1 to 3 17 Durant Mollisols Silt loam 1 to 3
18 Ferris Vertisols Clay 3 to 5 19 Ferris Vertisols Clay 2 to 5 eroded
20 Ferris Vertisols Clay 5 to 12 21 Garton Mollisols Silty clay loam 0
22 Guyton Alfisols Silt loam 0 23 Heiden Vertisols Clay 2 to 5
24 Hollywood Vertisols Silty clay 1 to 3 25 Hollywood Vertisols Silty clay 3 to 5
26 Hollywood-Swink Vertisols Complex 2 to 8 27 Hopco Mollisols Silty clay loam 0
28 Idabel Inceptisols Silt loam 0 29 Karma Alfisols Fine sandy loam 0 to 1
30 Kaufman Vertisols Clay 0
31 Kaufman Vertisols Clay 0 depressional
116 Name Order Soil Slope % 32 Kiomatia Entisols Loamy fine sand 0 33 Larue Alfisols Loamy fine sand 2 to 5
34 Latanier Mollisols Clay 0 35 Lula Mollisols Silt loam 1 to 3
36 Muskogee Alfisols Silt loam 1 to 3 37 Newtonia Mollisols Silt loam 1 to 3
38 Oklared Entisols Very fine sandy loam 0 39 Panola Alfisols Silt loam 0 to 2
40 Piedger Mollisols Clay 0 41 Redlake Inceptisols Clay 0
42 Roebuck Mollisols Clay 0 43 Ruston Ultisols Fine sandy loam 1 to 3
44 Ruston Ultisols Fine sandy loam 3 to 5 45 Saffell Ultisols Gravelly fine sandy loam 3 to 8
46 Severn Entisols Very fine sandy loam 0 47 Smithdale Ultisols Fine sandy loam 5 to 15
48 Smithdale Ultisols Fine sandy loam 2 to 8 eroded 49 Speer Alfisols Fine sandy loam 0
50 Swink-Hollywood Mollisols Complex 5 to 20 51 Tenaha Vertisols Loamy fine sand 1 to 5
52 Tenaha Vertisols Loamy fine sand 5 to 8 53 Tenaha-Kirvin Vertisols Association steep
54 Tenaha & Smithdale Vertisols 2 to 12 gullied 55 Trinity Vertisols Clay 0
56 Tuscumbia Inceptisols Clay 0 57 Udorthents Entisols 0
58 Whakana Alfisols Very fine sandy loam 1 to 4 59 Whakana Alfisols Very fine sandy loam 4 to 8
60 Wrightsville-Elysiam Alfisols Complex undulating
Source: From the Soil Survey of Choctaw County, Oklahoma, 1979.
117 Table A8: Soil Survey of Coke County, Texas, 1974
Name Order Soil Composition Alkaline Slope (%) Symbol 1 Berda Inceptisols Loam Calcareous moderately 2 to 5 BdC
2 Bronte Alfisols fine sandy loam Calcareous neutral to moderately 0 to 1 BrA 3 Bronte Alfisols fine sandy loam Calcareous neutral to moderately 1 to 3 BrB
4 Brownfield Alfisols fine sand Non-calcareous neutral to mildly 0 to 5 BsC 5 Clairemont Entisols silt loam Calcareous moderately level Ca
6 Cobb Alfisols loamy fine sand Calcareous neutral to moderately 0 to 3 CbB 7 Cobb Alfisols fine sandy loam Calcareous neutral to moderately 1 to 3 CfB
8 Cobb Alfisols fine sandy loam Calcareous neutral to moderately 2 to 5 CfC2 9 Cobb and Cosh Alfisols Complex Calcareous neutral to moderately 3 to 5 ChC
10 Colorado Entisols Loam Calcareous moderately level Cm 11 Cosh and Cobb Alfisols Soils Calcareous neutral to mild 1 to 3 CnB
12 Cosh and Latom Alfisols Soils Calcareous moderately 1 to 10 Cod 13 Cottonwood Entisols Loam Calcareous moderately 1 to 3 CtB
14 Frio Mollisols silty clay loam Calcareous moderately level Fr 15 Lipan Entisols Clay Calcareous moderately level Lc
16 Mereta Mollisols clay loam Calcareous moderately 0 to 1 McA 17 Mereta Mollisols clay loam Calcareous moderately 1 to 3 McB
18 Mereta-Nuvalde Mollisols Complex Calcareous moderately 0 to 1 MeA 19 Mereta-Nuvlade Mollisols Complex Calcareous moderately 1 to 3 MeB
20 Miles Alfisols loamy fine sand Non-Calcareous neutral to mildly 0 to 3 MlB
21 Miles Alfisols fine sandy loam Calcareous neutral to mildly 0 to 1 MmA
118 Name Order Soil Composition Alkaline Slope (%) Symbol 22 Miles Alfisols fine sandy loam Calcareous mildly 1 to 3 MmB 23 Miles Alfisols fine sandy loam Calcareous moderately 3 to 5 MmC
24 Nuvalde Mollisols silty clay loam Calcareous moderately 0 to 1 NuA 25 Nuvalde Mollisols silty clay loam Calcareous moderately 1 to 3 NuB
26 Olton Mollisols clay loam Calcareous mildly 0 to 1 OcA 27 Olton Mollisols clay loam Calcareous moderately 1 to 3 OcB
28 Spade Inceptisols fine sandy loam Calcareous moderately 1 to 3 SpB 29 Tivoli Entisols fine sand Non-Calcareous neutral hummocky ThC
30 Vernon-Badland Inceptisols Complex Calcareous moderately 2 to 20 Vb 31 Weymouth Inceptisols Loam Calcareous moderately 1 to 3 WeB
32 Weymouth Inceptisols Loam Calcareous moderately 3 to 5 WeC 33 Yahola Entisols very fine sandy loam Calcareous moderately level Ya
34 Berda-Vernon-Potter Inceptisols-Mollisols loamy clayey sandy Calcareous mildly to moderately undulating BVB 35 Kimbrough Mollisols Loam Calcareous mildly undulating KMB
36 Stony Inceptisols rocky clay loam Calcareous moderately steep land SS 37 Tarrant Mollisols clayey loam Calcareous moderately undulation TAB
38 Tarrant Mollisols clayey loam Calcareous moderately hilly TAE
Source: From the Survey of Coke County, Texas, 1974.
119 Table A9: Soil Survey of Denton County, Texas, 1980
Name Order Soil Alkaline Slope (%) 1 Aledo Mollisols clay, loam, rocky moderately alkaline 1 to 8 2 Altoga Inceptisols silty clay moderately alkaline 3 to 5 3 Altoga Inceptisols silty clan moderately alkaline 5 to 8
4 Altoga Inceptisols silty clay moderately alkaline 5 to 12 5 Aquilla Alfisols loamy fine sand mildly alkaline 2 to 5
6 Arents Entisols gently undulating Neutral 1 to 5 7 Arents Entisols Hilly Neutral 10 to 30
8 Aubrey Ultisols fine sandy loam medium to strongly acid 2 to 5 9 Bastrop Alfisols fine sandy loam Neutral 1 to 3
10 Bastrop Alfisols fine sandy clay loam Neutral 3 to 5 11 Birome Alfisols fine sandy loam slightly acid 1 to 3
12 Birome Alfisols fine sandy loam medium acid 3 to 5 13 Birome-Rayex-Aubrey Complex slightly to strongly acid 2 to 15
14 Birome-Rayex-Urban Complex medium to strongly acid 2 to 12 15 Birome-Urban Complex weak to strongly acid 1 to 5
16 Bolar Mollisols clay loam moderately alkaline 1 to 3 17 Bolar Mollisols clay loam moderately alkaline 3 to 5
18 Branyon Vertisols Clay moderately alkaline 0 to 1 19 Branyon Vertisols Clay moderately alkaline 1 to 3
20 Bunyan Entisols fine sandy loam*** neutral to moderately acid 0 21 Burleson Vertisols Clay moderately alkaline 0 to 1
22 Burleson Vertisols Clay mildly to moderately alkaline 1 to 3
120 Name Order Soil Alkaline Slope (%) 23 Callisburg Alfisols fine sandy loam medium acid to mod. alkaline 1 to 3
24 Callisburg Alfisols fine sandy loam slightly acid 3 to 5 25 Callisburg Alfisols Soils slightly acid to mildly alkaline 2 to 5
26 Crockett Alfisols fine sandy loam slightly acid to mildly alkaline 0 to 1 27 Crockett Alfisols fine sandy loam neutral to moderately acid 1 to 3
28 Crockett-Urban Alfisols Complex slightly acid to mildly alkaline 0 to 2 29 Eddy Entisols gravelly clay loam moderately alkaline 3 to 15
30 Energy Entisols fine sandy loam*** moderately alkaline 0 31 Ferris-Heiden Vertisols Clay moderately alkaline 3 to 5
32 Ferris-Heiden Vertisols Clay moderately alkaline 5 to 15 33 Frio Mollisols silty clay*** moderately alkaline 0 to 1
34 Frio Mollisols silty clay*** moderately alkaline 0 to 1 35 Gasil Alfisols fine sandy loam Neutral 1 to 3
36 Gasil Alfisols fine sandy loam medium acid 3 to 8 37 Gasil-Urban Alfisols Complex slightly acid 1 to 4
38 Gasil and Konsil Alfisols Soils slightly to medium acid 1 to 5 39 Gowen Mollisols clay loam*** mildly to medium acid 0 to 1
40 Gowen Mollisols clay loam*** mildly to moderately alkaline 0 to1 41 Heiden Vertisols Clay moderately alkaline 1 to 3
42 Heiden Vertisols Clay moderately alkaline 3 to 5 43 Houston Black Vertisols Clay moderately alkaline 0 to 1
44 Houston Black Vertisols Clay moderately alkaline 1 to 3
45 Justin Mollisols fine sandy loam moderately alkaline 0 to 1
121 Name Order Soil Alkaline Slope (%) 46 Justin Mollisols fine sandy loam slightly acid to mildly alkaline 1 to 3 47 Justin Mollisols fine sandy loam slightly acid to mildly alkaline 3 to 5
48 Justin-Urban Mollisols Complex neutral to slightly acid 0 to 3 50 Konsil Alfisols fine sandy loam neutral to medium acid 1 to 3
51 Konsil Alfisols fine sandy loam neutral to medium acid 3 to 8 52 Lewisville Mollisols clay loam moderately alkaline 1 to 3
53 Lewisville Mollisols clay loam moderately alkaline 3 to 5 54 Lindale Alfisols clay loam slightly acid to mod. alkaline 1 to 3
55 Lindale-Urban Alfisols Complex slightly acid to mod. alkaline 1 to 5 56 Medlin-Sanger Vertisols Clay moderately alkaline 5 to 15
57 Medlin-Sanger Vertisols stony clay moderately alkaline 5 to 12 58 Mingo Mollisols clay loam mildly to moderately alkaline 1 to 3
59 Navo Alfisols clay loam slightly acid to mod. alkaline 0 to 1 60 Navo Alfisols clay loam medium acid to mod. alkaline 1 to 3
61 Navo Alfisols clay loam neutral to medium acid 3 to 5 62 Navo-Urban Alfisols Complex slightly acid to mod. alkaline 0 to 3
63 Ovan Vertisols clay** moderately alkaline 0 64 Ovan Vertisols clay*** moderately alkaline 0
65 Ponder Alfisols Loam neutral to medium acid 0 to 1 66 Ponder Alfisols Loam neutral to medium acid 1 to 3
67 Sanger Vertisols Clay moderately alkaline 1 to 3 68 Sanger Vertisols Clay moderately alkaline 3 to 5
69 Sanger-Urban Vertisols Complex moderately alkaline 1 to 4
122 Name Order Soil Alkaline Slope (%) 70 Seagoville Vertisols clay** mild to moderately alkaline 0
71 Silawa Alfisols loamy fine sand slightly to medium acid 2 to 5 72 Silstid Alfisols loamy fine sand slightly to medium acid 1 to 5
73 Silstid-Urban Alfisols Complex slightly to medium acid 1 to 5 74 Slidell Vertisols Clay moderately alkaline 1 to 3
75 Somervell Mollisols gravelly loam moderately alkaline 1 to 5 76 Speck Mollisols clay loam neutral to mildly alkaline 1 to 3
77 Stephen Mollisols silty clay moderately alkaline 1 to 5 78 Trinity Vertisols clay** moderately alkaline 0
79 Trinity Vertisols clay*** moderately alkaline 0 80 Vertel Vertisols Clay mild alkaline, neutral, medium acid 1 to 3
81 Vertel Vertisols Clay mild alkaline, neutral, medium acid 3 to 5 82 Vertel Vertisols clay mild alkaline, neutral, medium acid 5 to 12
83 Wilson Alfisols clay loam slightly acid to mod. alkaline 0 to 1 84 Wilson Alfisols clay loam slightly acid to mod. alkaline 1 to 3
85 Wilson-Urban Alfisols Complex slightly acid to mod. alkaline 0 to2 W Water, > than 40 acres ** Occasional flooding
*** Frequent flooding
Source: From the Soil Survey of Denton County Texas, 1980.
123 Table A10: Oak Trees, Common Names and Counties Where Located
COMMON NAME(S) OF OAKS BOTANICAL NAME FAMILY COUNTY* 1 Ajo mountain scrub oak Quercus ajoensis Fagaceae
2 Aallegheny chinquapin Castanea pumila Fagaceae CH 3 Aamerican beech Fagus gandifolia Fagaceae
4 Arizona white, Arizona oak Quercus arizonica Fagaceae 5 Arkansas, water oak Quercus arkansana Fagaceae
6 Bear, scrub oak Quercus ilicifolia Fagaceae 7 Black, yellow oak, quercitron (old literature) Quercus velutina Fagaceae CH, D
8 Blackjack oak Quercus marilandica Fagaceae CH, C, D 9 Blue, mountain white, iron oak Quercus douglasii Fagaceae
10 Bluejack oak Quercus incana Fagaceae 11 Bur, mossycup oak Quercus macrocarpa Fagaceae C, CH, D
12 California black, black, Kellogg oak Quercus kelloggii Fagaceae 13 Canyon live, canyon, goldcup oak Quercus chrysolepis Fagaceae
14 Chapman, scrub oak Quercus chapmanii Fagaceae 15 Cherrybark, swamp red oak Quercus pagoda Fagaceae CH, D
16 Chestnut, basket oak Quercus prinus Fagaceae 17 Chinkapin, yellow, rock, yellow chestnut oak Quercus muehlenbergii Fagaceae D
18 Chinquapin oak Quercus prinoides Fagaceae 19 Chisos oak Quercus graciliformis Fagaceae D
20 Coast live, California live oak. encina Quercus agrifolia Fagaceae
21 Coast oak Quercus parvula Fagaceae
124 COMMON NAME(S) OF OAKS BOTANICAL NAME FAMILY COUNTY* 22 Coastal scrub, California scrub, scrub oak Quercus dumosa Fagaceae 23 Ceer oak Quercus sadleriana Fagaceae
24 Cesert scrub, turbinella, shrub live, scrub oak Quercus turbinella Fagaceae 25 Cunn, Palmer oak Quercus dunnii Fagaceae
26 Durand, bluff oak Quercus durandii Fagaceae 27 Emory, black, blackjack oak Quercus emoryi Fagaceae
28 Engelmann, evergreen white, mesa oak Quercus engelmannii Fagaceae 29 English, common, pedunculate, truffle oak Quercus robur Fagaceae
30 Gambel, Rocky Mountain white, Utah white oak Quercus gambelii Fagaceae 31 Georgia oak Quercus georgiana Fagaceae
32 Graves, Chisos red oak Quercus gravesii Fagaceae 33 Gray oak Quercus grisea Fagaceae
34 Havard, shin, shinnery, havard shin oak Quercus havardii Fagaceae 35 Huckleberry oak Quercus vaccinifolia Fagaceae
36 Interior live, oakhighland live, sierra live oak Quercus wislizenii Fagaceae 37 Island, island live oak Quercus tomentella Fagaceae
38 Island scrub oak Quercus macdonaldii Fagaceae 39 Lacey, rock, canyon, smoky oak Quercuslaceyi Fagaceae C
40 Lateleaf oak Quercus tardifolia Fagaceae 41 Laurel, Darlington oak Quercus hemisphaerica Fagaceae
42 Laurel, diamond leaf oak Quercus laurifolia Fagaceae 43 Leather oak Quercus durata Fagaceae
44 Live oak Quercus virginiana Fagaceae
125 COMMON NAME(S) OF OAKS BOTANICAL NAME FAMILY COUNTY* 45 Mapleleaf oak Quercus acerifolia Fagaceae
46 Mexican blue oak Quercus oblongifolia Fagaceae 47 Mohr, shin oak, scrub oak Quercus mohriana Fagaceae
48 Muller oak Quercus cornelius-mulleri Fagaceae 49 Myrtle, crub oak Quercus myrtifolia Fagaceae
50 Netleaf oak Quercus rugosa Fagaceae 51 Northern pin oak Quercus ellipsoidalis Fagaceae
52 Northern, common, eastern, mountain red oaks Quercus rubra Fagaceae 53 Nuttall oak Quercus nuttallii Fagaceae
54 Oak Quercus sp. Fagaceae 55 Oglethorpe oak Quercus oglethorpensis Fagaceae
56 Oregon white, garry, Oregon white oak Quercusgarryana Fagaceae 57 Overcup oak Quercus lyrata Fagaceae
58 Palmer oak Quercus palmeri Fagaceae 59 Pin, swamp oak Quercus palustris Fagaceae
60 Post oak Quercus stellata Fagaceae C, CH, D 61 Sandjack oak Quercus incana Fagaceae CH, D
62 Sand live oak Quercus geminata Fagaceae 63 Sandpaper, scrub, shin oak Quercus pungens Fagaceae
64 Sawtooth oak Quercus acutissima Fagaceae 65 Scarlet oak Quercus coccinea Fagaceae
66 Scrub oak Quercus berberidifolia Fagaceae
67 Shingle, laurel oak Quercus imbricaria Fagaceae
126 COMMON NAME(S) OF OAKS BOTANICAL NAME FAMILY COUNTY* 68 Shumard oak Quercus shumardii Fagaceae CH,D 69 Silk-oak, silky-oak Grevillea robusta Proteaceae
70 Silverleaf oak Quercus hypoleucoides Fagaceae 71 Southern red, spanish oak Quercus falcata Fagaceae CH, D
72 Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxii Fagaceae 73 Swamp white oak Quercus bicolor Fagaceae
74 Tan, tanbark-oak Lithocarpus densiflorus Fagaceae 75 Texas oak Quercus Buckelyi Fagaceae C, CH
76 Toumey oak Quercus toumeyi Fagaceae 77 Tucker oak Quercus john-tuckeri Fagaceae
78 Turkey oak Quercus laevis Fagaceae 79 Valley, California white, mush oak Quercuslobata Fagaceae
80 Water, possum oak Quercus nigra Fagaceae CH, D 81 White oak Quercus alba Fagaceae CH
82 White shin oak Quercus sinuata Fagaceae C
83 willow oak Quercus phellos Fagaceae CH, D
*C = Coke; D = Denton; Ch = Choctaw. Source for data: Oak tree, common, botanical name, and counties where they are found, from Cox, 1999, Oklahoma Department of Agriculture Forestry Services, 2000, http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/ornamentals/natives/about.html, and 2004, Texas Science Olympiad Forestry Specimen Tree List, Oakcommonname.jsp_files\redir.html. Oklahoma Biological Survey, 2005, http://geo.ou.edu/botanical/.
127 Table A11: Coke County, Texas Soil Orders on Geologic Formations
2 2 2 2 Relative Km Mi Soil_Order Km Mi % Freq 97.62 37.69 Alfisols 6.82 2.63 0.0698 6.98%
97.62 37.69 Alfisols-Entisols 31.24 12.06 0.3200 32.00% 97.62 37.69 Entisols-Alfisols 0.89 0.35 0.0093 0.93%
Alluvium (Qal) 97.62 37.69 Mollisols 52.69 20.35 0.5399 53.99% 97.62 37.69 Mollisols-Alfisols 5.97 2.30 0.0610 6.10%
97.62 37.69 Water 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Totals 97.62 37.69 1.0000 100.00%
37.25 14.39 Alfisols-Entisols 1.08 0.42 0.0292 2.92% 37.25 14.39 Entisols-Alfisols 26.95 10.41 0.7234 72.34%
Windblown Sand (Qs) 37.25 14.39 Mollisols 7.51 2.90 0.2015 20.15% 37.25 14.39 Mollisols-Alfisols 1.71 0.66 0.0459 4.59%
Totals 37.25 14.39 1.0000 100.00% 140.29 54.16 Alfisols 0.03 0.01 0.0002 0.02%
140.29 54.16 Alfisols-Entisols 0.63 0.24 0.0044 0.44% 140.29 54.16 Mollisols 138.66 53.54 0.9886 98.86% Quaternary Deposits Undivided (Qau) 140.29 54.16 Mollisols-Alfisols 0.71 0.27 0.0050 0.50% 140.29 54.16 Water 0.26 0.10 0.0018 0.18%
Totals 140.29 54.16 1.0000 100.00%
Pleistocene Surficial Deposits Undivided 20.65 7.96 Alfisols 4.52 1.74 0.2186 21.86% (Qu) 20.65 7.96 Alfisols-Entisols 0.36 0.14 0.0176 1.76%
20.65 7.96 Entisols-Alfisols 5.71 2.20 0.2764 27.64%
128 2 2 2 2 Relative Km Mi Soil_Order Km Mi % Freq 20.65 7.96 Mollisols 9.67 3.73 0.4686 46.86%
20.65 7.96 Mollisols-Alfisols 0.39 0.15 0.0188 1.88%
Totals 20.65 7.96 1.0000 100.00% 120.50 46.52 Alfisols 0.19 0.07 0.0015 0.15%
120.50 46.52 Alfisols-Entisols 31.22 12.05 0.2590 25.90% 120.50 46.52 Entisols-Alfisols 0.25 0.10 0.0021 0.21%
Fluviatile Terrace Deposits (Qt) 120.50 46.52 Mollisols 59.22 22.86 0.4914 49.14% 120.50 46.52 Mollisols-Alfisols 29.62 11.44 0.2459 24.59%
120.50 46.52 Water 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Totals 120.50 46.52 1.0000 100.00%
4.84 1.87 Mollisols 3.65 1.41 0.7540 75.40% Playa Deposits (Qp) 4.84 1.87 Mollisols-Alfisols 1.19 0.46 0.2460 24.60%
Totals 4.84 1.87 1.0000 100.00% 167.61 64.71 Alfisols 6.32 2.44 0.0377 3.77%
167.61 64.71 Alfisols-Entisols 3.26 1.26 0.0195 1.95% 167.61 64.71 Entisols-Alfisols 0.86 0.33 0.0051 0.51% Seymour Formation and other Quaternary Deposits (Qao) 167.61 64.71 Mollisols 148.87 57.48 0.8883 88.83% 167.61 64.71 Mollisols-Alfisols 8.27 3.19 0.0493 4.93%
167.61 64.71 Water 0.03 0.01 0.0002 0.02% Totals 167.61 64.71 1.0000 100.00%
5.68 2.19 Mollisols 5.68 2.19 1.0000 100.00% Windblown Cover Sand (Qcs) Totals 5.68 2.19 1.0000 100.00%
129 2 2 2 2 Relative Km Mi Soil_Order Km Mi % Freq 2.39 0.92 Mollisols 2.39 0.92 1.0000 100.00% Ogallala Formation (To) Totals 2.39 0.92 1.0000 100.00%
79.85 30.83 Alfisols 2.63 1.02 0.0331 3.31% 79.85 30.83 Mollisols 76.98 29.72 0.9640 96.40% Edwards Group Undivided (Kecw) 79.85 30.83 Mollisols-Alfisols 0.24 0.09 0.0029 0.29% Totals 79.85 30.83 1.0000 100.00%
Segovia Formation (Ks) 139.54 53.88 Mollisols 139.54 53.88 1.0000 100.00%
Totals 139.54 53.88 1.0000 100.00%
326.68 126.13 Mollisols 326.63 126.11 0.9998 99.98% Fort Terrett (Kft) 326.68 126.13 Mollisols-Alfisols 0.05 0.02 0.0002 0.02%
Totals 326.68 126.13 1.0000 100.00% 172.23 66.50 Alfisols 27.36 10.56 0.1588 15.88%
172.23 66.50 Alfisols-Entisols 0.11 0.04 0.0006 0.06% 172.23 66.50 Entisols-Alfisols 0.07 0.03 0.0005 0.05% Antlers Sand (Ka) 172.23 66.50 Mollisols 143.17 55.28 0.8313 83.13% 172.23 66.50 Mollisols-Alfisols 1.52 0.59 0.0089 0.89%
Totals 172.23 66.50 1.0000 100.00%
28.43 10.98 Mollisols 28.43 10.98 1.0000 100.00% Dockum Group (TRd) Totals 28.43 10.98 1.0000 100.00% Quartermaster Formation (Pq) 90.60 34.98 Alfisols-Entisols 0.41 0.16 0.0046 0.46%
90.60 34.98 Entisols-Alfisols 1.05 0.40 0.0114 1.14% 90.60 34.98 Mollisols 89.14 34.42 0.9840 98.40%
130 2 2 2 2 Relative Km Mi Soil_Order Km Mi % Freq Totals 90.60 34.98 1.0000 100.00%
9.08 3.50 Alfisols 2.45 0.94 0.2686 26.86% Whitehorse, Cloud Chief, Blaine Undivided (Pwb) 9.08 3.50 Mollisols 6.63 2.56 0.7314 73.14% Totals 9.08 3.50 1.0000 100.00%
384.96 148.64 Alfisols 11.32 4.37 0.0294 2.94%
384.96 148.64 Alfisols-Entisols 12.20 4.71 0.0317 3.17%
384.96 148.64 Entisols-Alfisols 7.11 2.75 0.0185 1.85% Whitehorse, Cloud Chief, Undivided (Pwh) 384.96 148.64 Mollisols 352.97 136.28 0.9168 91.68% 384.96 148.64 Mollisols-Alfisols 1.24 0.48 0.0032 0.32%
384.96 148.64 Water 0.12 0.05 0.0003 0.03%
Totals 384.96 148.64 1.0000 100.00%
107.75 41.60 Alfisols 25.76 9.95 0.2392 23.92%
107.75 41.60 Alfisols-Entisols 2.08 0.80 0.0192 1.92%
107.75 41.60 Entisols-Alfisols 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Blaine Formation (Pb) 107.75 41.60 Mollisols 71.90 27.76 0.6673 66.73%
107.75 41.60 Mollisols-Alfisols 8.00 3.09 0.0743 7.43%
Totals 107.75 41.60 1.0000 100.00% San Angelo (Psa) 236.91 91.47 Alfisols 5.48 2.12 0.0232 2.32%
236.91 91.47 Alfisols-Entisols 5.44 2.10 0.0230 2.30% 236.91 91.47 Mollisols 57.32 22.13 0.2419 24.19%
236.91 91.47 Mollisols-Alfisols 168.50 65.06 0.7113 71.13%
131 2 2 2 2 Relative Km Mi Soil_Order Km Mi % Freq 236.91 91.47 Water 0.17 0.06 0.0007 0.07%
Totals 236.91 91.47 1.0000 100.00%
120.41 46.48 Alfisols-Entisols 3.66 1.41 0.0303 3.03%
120.41 46.48 Mollisols 100.14 38.66 0.8318 83.18% Clear Fork Group (Pcf) 120.41 46.48 Mollisols-Alfisols 16.61 6.41 0.1379 13.79%
Totals 120.41 46.48 1.0000 100.00%
67.86 26.20 Alfisols 0.08 0.03 0.0011 0.08%
67.86 26.20 Alfisols-Entisols 14.06 5.43 0.2073 21.96%
67.86 26.20 Entisols-Alfisols 0.36 0.14 0.0053 0.39%
Water (w) 67.86 26.20 Mollisols 30.82 11.90 0.4542 45.25%
67.86 26.20 Mollisols-Alfisols 4.51 1.74 0.0664 4.81%
67.86 26.20 Water 18.03 6.96 0.2656 27.51%
Totals 67.86 26.20 1.0000 100.00%
Source: Generated in ArcMap using Coke County, Texas formations and the respective area in square kilometers and mile for each soil order found on the formation. Relative frequency and percentage are listed for each formation.
132 Table A12: Denton County, Texas Soil Orders on Geologic Formations
Km2 Mi2 Soil_Order Km2 Mi2 Relative Freq % 222.79 86.02 Alfisol 17.87 6.90 0.080 8.02%
222.79 86.02 Inceptisol-Vertisol 5.32 2.06 0.024 2.39% 222.79 86.02 Mollisol 5.34 2.06 0.024 2.39%
222.79 86.02 Mollisol-Vertisol 170.43 65.80 0.765 76.49% Alluvium (Qal) 222.79 86.02 Vertisol 4.70 1.81 0.021 2.10%
222.79 86.02 Vertisol-Mollisol 16.38 6.32 0.073 7.35% 222.79 86.02 Water 2.77 1.07 0.012 1.24%
222.81 86.02 1.00 100.00%
221.03 85.34 Alfisol 81.34 31.41 0.3681 36.81%
221.03 85.34 Inceptisol-Vertisol 23.16 8.94 0.1048 10.48%
221.03 85.34 Mollisol 0.03 0.01 0.0001 0.01%
221.03 85.34 Mollisol-Vertisol 31.45 12.14 0.1423 14.23% Fluviatile (Qt) 221.03 85.34 Vertisol 59.89 23.12 0.2709 27.09%
221.03 85.34 Vertisol-Mollisol 22.23 8.58 0.1005 10.05%
221.03 85.34 Water 2.95 1.14 0.0134 1.34%
221.05 85.34 1.00 100.00% Surficial Deposits (Qu) 95.23 36.77 Alfisol 5.26 2.03 0.0552 5.52%
95.23 36.77 Inceptisol-Vertisol 12.10 4.67 0.1270 12.70% 95.23 36.77 Mollisol-Vertisol 3.33 1.29 0.0351 3.51%
95.23 36.77 Vertisol 57.27 22.11 0.6013 60.13%
95.23 36.77 Vertisol-Mollisol 17.27 6.67 0.1814 18.14%
133 Km2 Mi2 Soil_Order Km2 Mi2 Relative Freq %
95.23 36.77 1.00 100.00%
16.58 6.40 Alfisol 15.12 5.84 0.9125 91.25%
Austin Chalk (Kau) 16.58 6.40 Vertisol 1.45 0.56 0.0875 8.75%
16.57 6.40 1.00 100.00%
212.04 81.87 Alfisol 86.34 33.33 0.4071 40.71%
212.04 81.87 Inceptisol-Vertisol 42.04 16.23 0.1982 19.82%
212.04 81.87 Mollisol-Vertisol 3.19 1.23 0.0150 1.50% Eagleford Shale (Kef) 212.04 81.87 Vertisol 76.45 29.52 0.3606 36.06%
212.04 81.87 Water 4.03 1.56 0.0191 1.91%
212.05 81.87 1.00 100.00%
571.48 220.65 Alfisol 530.14 204.69 0.9277 92.77% 571.48 220.65 Inceptisol-Vertisol 0.10 0.04 0.0002 0.02%
571.48 220.65 Mollisol-Vertisol 12.81 4.95 0.0224 2.24% Woodbine (Kwb) 571.48 220.65 Vertisol 18.63 7.19 0.0326 3.26%
571.48 220.65 Vertisol-Mollisol 6.10 2.35 0.0107 1.07% 571.48 220.65 Water 3.71 1.43 0.0065 0.65%
571.49 220.65 1.00 100.00% 1.30 0.50 Alfisol 1.30 0.50 1.0000 100.00% Dexter (Kwd) 1.30 0.50 1.00 100.00%
Grayson Main Street (Kgm) 123.72 47.77 Alfisol 56.69 21.89 0.4582 45.82%
123.72 47.77 Mollisol-Vertisol 0.89 0.34 0.0071 0.71%
123.72 47.77 Vertisol-Mollisol 66.15 25.54 0.5346 53.46%
134 Km2 Mi2 Soil_Order Km2 Mi2 Relative Freq %
123.73 47.77 1.00 100.00% 6.27 2.42 Alfisol 5.89 2.27 0.9380 93.80%
Pawpaw (Kpd) 6.27 2.42 Mollisol-Vertisol 0.40 0.15 0.0620 6.20% 6.29 2.42 1.00 100.00%
0.13 0.05 Alfisol 0.02 0.01 0.2000 20.00% 0.13 0.05 Mollisol-Vertisol 0.11 0.04 0.8000 80.00% Weno (Kwe) 0.13 0.05 Water 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 0.13 0.05 1.00 100.00%
15.59 6.02 Alfisol 6.65 2.57 0.4269 42.69%
Denton Clay (Kd) 15.59 6.02 Vertisol-Mollisol 8.93 3.45 0.5731 57.31%
15.58 6.02 1.00 100.00%
213.78 82.54 Alfisol 54.00 20.85 0.2526 25.26%
213.78 82.54 Mollisol-Vertisol 7.13 2.75 0.0333 3.33% Bochito (Kpd) 213.78 82.54 Vertisol-Mollisol 152.65 58.94 0.7141 71.41%
213.78 82.54 1.00 100.00% 56.05 21.64 Alfisol 10.88 4.20 0.1941 19.41%
56.05 21.64 Mollisol-Vertisol 0.11 0.04 0.0018 0.18% Fort Worth (Kfw) 56.05 21.64 Vertisol-Mollisol 45.06 17.40 0.8041 80.41%
56.05 21.64 1.00 100.00%
Duck Creek (Kdc) 32.25 12.45 Alfisol 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00%
32.25 12.45 Mollisol 5.65 2.18 0.1751 17.51%
32.25 12.45 Mollisol-Vertisol 0.42 0.16 0.0129 1.29%
135 Km2 Mi2 Soil_Order Km2 Mi2 Relative Freq %
32.25 12.45 Vertisol-Mollisol 26.18 10.11 0.8120 81.20%
32.25 12.45 1.00 100.00%
458.20 176.91 Alfisol 127.19 49.11 0.2776 27.76%
458.20 176.91 Mollisol 10.32 3.98 0.0225 2.25%
Caddo (Kc) 458.20 176.91 Mollisol-Vertisol 14.85 5.73 0.0324 3.24%
458.20 176.91 Vertisol-Mollisol 305.86 118.09 0.6675 66.75%
458.22 176.91 1 100.00%
21.21 8.19 Mollisol 10.17 3.93 0.4799 47.99%
21.21 8.19 Mollisol-Vertisol 1.45 0.56 0.0684 6.84% Kiamichi (Kki) 21.21 8.19 Vertisol-Mollisol 9.60 3.70 0.4518 45.18%
21.22 8.19 1.00 100.00% 29.47 11.38 Mollisol 24.46 9.45 0.8304 83.04%
29.47 11.38 Mollisol-Vertisol 3.49 1.35 0.1186 11.86% Goodland (Kgw) 29.47 11.38 Vertisol-Mollisol 1.49 0.58 0.0510 5.10%
29.44 11.38 1.00 100.00%
3.16 1.22 Mollisol 2.92 1.13 0.9262 92.62%
Antlers (Ka) 3.16 1.22 Mollisol-Vertisol 0.24 0.09 0.0738 7.38%
3.16 1.22 1.00 100.00%
Water (W) 172.03 66.42 Alfisol 10.08 3.89 0.0586 5.86%
172.03 66.42 Inceptisol-Vertisol 3.40 1.31 0.0197 1.97%
172.03 66.42 Mollisol 0.56 0.22 0.0033 0.33%
172.03 66.42 Mollisol-Vertisol 5.94 2.29 0.0345 3.45%
136 Km2 Mi2 Soil_Order Km2 Mi2 Relative Freq %
172.03 66.42 Vertisol 1.66 0.64 0.0096 0.96%
172.03 66.42 Vertisol-Mollisol 0.46 0.18 0.0027 0.27%
172.03 66.42 Water 149.94 57.89 0.8716 87.16%
172.04 66.42 1.00 100.00%
Source: Denton County, Texas formations and the respective area in square kilometers and mile for each soil order found on the formation. Relative frequency and percentage are listed for each formation.
137 Table A13: Choctaw County, Oklahoma Soil Orders on Geologic Formations
Km2 Mi2 Soil_Order Km2 Mi2 Relative Freq % Antlers (Ka) 469.44 181.25 Alf-Vert-Mollisols 13.63 5.26 0.0290 2.90%
469.44 181.25 Alfisols 182.05 70.29 0.3878 38.78% 469.44 181.25 Alfisols-Entisols 2.31 0.89 0.0049 0.49%
469.44 181.25 Entisols 5.01 1.93 0.0106 1.06% 469.44 181.25 Inceptisols 2.48 0.96 0.0053 0.53%
469.44 181.25 Ultisols 253.51 97.88 0.5400 54.00% 469.44 181.25 Vertisols 9.83 3.80 0.0210 2.10%
469.44 181.25 Water 0.61 0.24 0.0013 0.13% 469.43 181.25 1.0000 100.00%
Bennington (Kgb) 7.56 2.92 Alfisols 6.32 2.44 0.8356 83.56%
7.56 2.92 Entisols 1.24 0.48 0.1644 16.44% 7.56 2.92 1.0000 100.00%
Caddo (Kc) 205.71 79.42 Alf-Vert-Mollisols 9.76 3.77 0.0475 4.75%
205.71 79.42 Alfisols 53.84 20.79 0.2618 26.18% 205.71 79.42 Entisols 0.14 0.05 0.0006 0.06%
205.71 79.42 Mollisols 0.18 0.07 0.0009 0.09% 205.71 79.42 Ultisols 4.58 1.77 0.0223 2.23%
205.71 79.42 Vertisols 137.20 52.97 0.6670 66.70% 205.70 79.42 1.0000 100.00%
138 Km2 Mi2 Soil_Order Km2 Mi2 Relative Freq % Denton Clay (Kd) 95.04 36.69 Alf-Vert-Mollisols 3.16 1.22 0.0333 3.33%
95.04 36.69 Alfisols 65.20 25.17 0.6860 68.60% 95.04 36.69 Vertisols 26.67 10.30 0.2807 28.07%
95.04 36.69 Water 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 95.04 36.69 1.0000 100.00%
Goodland (Kgw) 72.75 28.09 Alf-Vert-Mollisols 1.50 0.58 0.0206 2.06%
72.75 28.09 Alfisols 46.45 17.95 0.6390 63.90% 72.75 28.09 Entisols 1.45 0.56 0.0199 1.99%
72.75 28.09 Ultisols 4.31 1.66 0.0591 5.91% 72.75 28.09 Vertisols 18.76 7.24 0.2577 25.77%
72.75 28.09 Water 0.27 0.10 0.0036 0.36% 72.74 28.09 1.0000 100.00%
Kiamichi (Kki) 148.99 57.53 Alf-Vert-Mollisols 1.23 0.47 0.0082 0.82%
148.99 57.53 Alfisols 75.86 29.29 0.5091 50.91% 148.99 57.53 Entisols 2.56 0.99 0.0172 1.72%
148.99 57.53 Ultisols 6.86 2.65 0.0461 4.61% 148.99 57.53 Vertisols 62.47 24.13 0.4194 41.94%
148.99 57.53 Water 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 148.98 57.53 1.0000 100.00%
139 Km2 Mi2 Soil_Order Km2 Mi2 Relative Freq % Pawpaw (Kpm) 114.22 44.10 Alfisols 112.59 43.46 0.9855 98.55% 114.22 44.10 Entisols 0.70 0.27 0.0061 0.61%
114.22 44.10 Mollisols 0.74 0.29 0.0066 0.66% 114.22 44.10 Vertisols 0.21 0.08 0.0018 0.18%
114.24 44.10 1.0000 100.00%
Quaternary (Qal) 224.77 86.78 Alf-Vert-Mollisols 24.81 9.58 0.1104 11.04% 224.77 86.78 Alfisols 56.86 21.95 0.2529 25.29%
224.77 86.78 Alfisols-Entisols 3.08 1.19 0.0137 1.37% 224.77 86.78 Alfisols-Mollisols 1.93 0.75 0.0086 0.86%
224.77 86.78 Entisols 59.93 23.14 0.2667 26.67% 224.77 86.78 Mollisols 35.00 13.51 0.1557 15.57%
224.77 86.78 Ultisols 11.58 4.47 0.0515 5.15% 224.77 86.78 Vertisols 15.52 5.99 0.0690 6.90%
224.77 86.78 Water 13.21 6.20 0.0714 7.14% 221.92 86.78 1.0000 100.00%
TenMile/Stanley (Mst) 0.44 0.17 Ultisols 0.44 0.17 1.0000 100.00%
0.44 0.17 1.0000 100.00%
Terreace Deposits (Qt) 271.64 104.8 Alfisols 157.47 60.79 0.5801 58.01% 271.64 104.8 Alfisols-Entisols 26.29 10.14 0.0968 9.68%
271.64 104.8 Alfisols-Mollisols 0.23 0.09 0.0009 0.09%
140 Km2 Mi2 Soil_Order Km2 Mi2 Relative Freq % 271.64 104.8 Alf-Vert-Mollisols 8.14 3.15 0.0301 3.01%
271.64 104.8 Entisols 23.52 9.07 0.0865 8.65% 271.64 104.8 Mollisols 27.48 10.6 0.1011 10.11%
271.64 104.8 Ultisols 13.93 5.38 0.0513 5.13% 271.64 104.8 Vertisols 9.17 3.53 0.0337 3.37%
271.64 104.8 Water 5.32 2.05 0.0196 1.96% 271.55 104.8 1.0000 100.00%
Weno (Kwe) 91.42 35.30 Alf-Vert-Mollisols 1.53 0.59 0.0167 1.67%
91.42 35.30 Alfisols 82.72 31.94 0.9048 90.48% 91.42 35.30 Mollisols 3.68 1.42 0.0402 4.02%
91.42 35.30 Vertisols 3.49 1.35 0.0382 3.82% 91.42 35.30 1.0000 100.00%
Wildhorse/Jackfork (IPjf) 18.71 7.22 Inceptisols 7.61 2.94 0.4072 40.72%
18.71 7.22 Ultisols 11.10 4.28 0.5928 59.28% 18.71 7.22 1.0000 100.00%
Woodbine (Kwb) 278.92 107.69 Alfisols 243.94 94.20 0.8747 87.47%
278.92 107.69 Alfisols-Mollisols 0.29 0.11 0.0010 0.10% 278.92 107.69 Entisols 11.11 4.29 0.0398 3.98%
278.92 107.69 Mollisols 1.66 0.64 0.0059 0.59%
278.92 107.69 Vertisols 21.76 8.40 0.0780 7.80%
141 Km2 Mi2 Soil_Order Km2 Mi2 Relative Freq % 278.92 107.69 Water 0.13 0.05 0.0005 0.05%
278.89 107.69 1.0000 100.00%
Source: Choctaw County, Oklahoma formations and the respective area in square kilometers and mile for each soil order found on the formation. Relative frequency and percentage are listed for each formation.
142 Table A14: Coke County, Texas Landcover on Geologic Formations
Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % Alluvium (Qal) 97.47 37.63 1 Water 2.25 0.87 0.0231 2.31%
97.47 37.63 2 Bare Soil 0.35 0.14 0.0037 0.37% 97.47 37.63 3 Rangeland 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00%
97.47 37.63 4 Cropland 0.31 0.12 0.0032 0.32% 97.47 37.63 5 Urban Area 0.99 0.38 0.0101 1.01%
97.47 37.63 8 Deciduous Shrubland 38.66 14.93 0.3968 39.68% 97.47 37.63 9 Evergreen Shrubland 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Xeromorphic Subdesert 97.47 37.63 12 0.02 0.01 0.0003 0.03% Shrubland 97.47 37.63 13 Grassland 24.28 9.38 0.2493 24.93%
97.47 37.63 14 Sparse Shrub Layer 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Industrial and Commercial 97.47 37.63 15 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Complexes Semi-Flooded Temperate 97.47 37.63 17 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Grassland Temp-Flooded Cold Deciduous 97.47 37.63 20 6.87 2.65 0.0704 7.04% Wood 97.47 37.63 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 17.45 6.74 0.1791 17.91% Needle_Leaf Evergreen 97.47 37.63 29 6.24 2.41 0.0640 6.40% Woodland 1.0000 100.00%
Windblown Sand (Qs) 37.24 14.37 1 Water 0.22 0.08 0.0056 0.56%
37.24 14.37 2 Bare Soil 0.05 0.02 0.0014 0.14%
143 Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % 37.24 14.37 4 Cropland 0.51 0.20 0.0139 1.39% 37.24 14.37 8 Deciduous Shrubland 19.74 7.62 0.5303 53.03%
37.24 14.37 13 Grassland 6.90 2.66 0.1851 18.51% Temp-Flooded Cold Deciduous 37.24 14.37 20 2.16 0.83 0.0578 5.78% Wood 37.24 14.37 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 2.84 1.10 0.0765 7.65% Needle_Leaf Evergreen 37.24 14.37 29 4.82 1.86 0.1294 12.94% Woodland 37.24 14.37 1.0000 100.00%
Quaternary Deposits 140.05 54.06 1 Water 0.89 0.34 0.0063 0.63% Undivided (Qau) 140.05 54.06 2 Bare Soil 1.43 0.55 0.0102 1.02%
140.05 54.06 4 Cropland 0.31 0.12 0.0022 0.22% 140.05 54.06 5 Urban Area 0.64 0.25 0.0046 0.46%
140.05 54.06 8 Deciduous Shrubland 78.83 30.44 0.5631 56.31% 140.05 54.06 9 Evergreen Shrubland 0.03 0.01 0.0002 0.02%
140.05 54.06 10 Drought Deciduous Shrubland 0.06 0.02 0.0004 0.04% Xeromorphic Evergreen 140.05 54.06 11 0.03 0.01 0.0002 0.02% Shrubland Xeromorphic Subdesert 140.05 54.06 12 0.01 0.01 0.0002 0.02% Shrubland 140.05 54.06 13 Grassland 30.46 11.76 0.2175 21.75%
140.05 54.06 14 Sparse Shrub Layer 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Broad-Leaved Evergreen 140.05 54.06 19 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Shrubland
144 Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % Temp-Flooded Cold Deciduous 140.05 54.06 20 11.62 4.49 0.0831 8.31% Wood 140.05 54.06 21 Short Sod Temperate Grassland 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00%
140.05 54.06 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 9.59 3.70 0.0684 6.84% Needle_Leaf Evergreen 140.05 54.06 29 6.12 2.36 0.0437 4.37% Woodland 140.05 54.06 1.0000 100.00%
Pleistocene Surficial 20.53 7.92 1 Water 0.02 0.01 0.0013 0.13% Deposits (Qu) 20.53 7.92 2 Bare Soil 0.13 0.05 0.0063 0.63%
20.53 7.92 4 Cropland 0.01 0.01 0.0013 0.13% 20.53 7.92 8 Deciduous Shrubland 8.79 3.39 0.4280 42.80%
20.53 7.92 13 Grassland 4.33 1.67 0.2109 21.09% Broad-Leaved Evergreen 20.53 7.92 19 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Shrubland Temp-Flooded Cold Deciduous 20.53 7.92 20 1.63 0.63 0.0795 7.95% Wood 20.53 7.92 21 Short Sod Temperate Grassland 0.02 0.01 0.0013 0.13%
20.53 7.92 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 1.68 0.65 0.0821 8.21% 20.53 7.92 23 Confined Feeding Operations 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Annual Graminoid or Forb 20.53 7.92 25 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Vegetation Needle_Leaf Evergreen 20.53 7.92 29 3.89 1.50 0.1894 18.94% Woodland 20.53 7.92 1.0000 100.00%
145 Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % Fluviatile Terrace Deposits 120.44 46.50 1 Water 0.81 0.31 0.0067 0.67% (Qt) 120.44 46.50 2 Bare Soil 1.22 0.47 0.0101 1.01%
120.44 46.50 4 Cropland 0.14 0.05 0.0011 0.11% 120.44 46.50 5 Urban Area 2.35 0.91 0.0196 1.96%
120.44 46.50 8 Deciduous Shrubland 52.86 20.41 0.4389 43.87% 120.44 46.50 13 Grassland 30.55 11.80 0.2538 25.37% Temp-Flooded Cold Deciduous 120.44 46.50 20 8.37 3.23 0.0695 6.94% Wood 120.44 46.50 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 12.43 4.80 0.1032 10.32% Needle_Leaf Evergreen 120.44 46.50 29 11.71 4.52 0.0972 9.72% Woodland 120.44 46.50 1.0000 99.96%
Playa Deposits (Qp) 4.85 1.87 2 Bare Soil 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00%
4.85 1.87 4 Cropland 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 4.85 1.87 8 Deciduous Shrubland 1.96 0.76 0.4064 40.64%
4.85 1.87 13 Grassland 1.59 0.61 0.3262 32.62% Temp-Flooded Cold Deciduous 4.85 1.87 20 0.68 0.26 0.1390 13.90% Wood 4.85 1.87 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 0.54 0.21 0.1123 11.23% Needle_Leaf Evergreen 4.85 1.87 29 0.07 0.03 0.0160 1.60% Woodland 4.85 1.87 1.0000 100.00%
146 Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % Seymour Formation and other Quaternary Deposits 167.55 64.68 1 Water 0.55 0.21 0.0032 0.32% (Qao) 167.55 64.68 2 Bare Soil 1.98 0.76 0.0118 1.18%
167.55 64.68 4 Cropland 0.02 0.01 0.0002 0.02% 167.55 64.68 8 Deciduous Shrubland 93.87 36.24 0.5603 56.03% Xeromorphic Evergreen 167.55 64.68 11 0.02 0.01 0.0002 0.02% Shrubland Xeromorphic Subdesert 167.55 64.68 12 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Shrubland 167.55 64.68 13 Grassland 30.45 11.76 0.1818 18.18% Temp-Flooded Cold Deciduous 167.55 64.68 20 11.34 4.38 0.0677 6.77% Wood 167.55 64.68 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 17.83 6.88 0.1064 10.64% Needle_Leaf Evergreen 167.55 64.68 29 11.48 4.43 0.0685 6.85% Woodland 167.55 64.68 1.0000 100.00%
Windblown Cover Sand 5.68 2.18 1 Water 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% (Qcs) 5.68 2.18 2 Bare Soil 0.03 0.01 0.0046 0.46%
5.68 2.18 8 Deciduous Shrubland 3.81 1.47 0.6743 67.43% 5.68 2.18 13 Grassland 0.83 0.32 0.1468 14.68% Temp-Flooded Cold Deciduous 5.68 2.18 20 0.47 0.18 0.0826 8.26% Wood 5.68 2.18 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 0.34 0.13 0.0596 5.96% Needle_Leaf Evergreen 5.68 2.18 29 0.19 0.07 0.0321 3.21% Woodland
147 Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % 5.68 2.18 1.0000 100.00%
Ogallala Formation (To) 2.35 0.91 1 Water 0.01 0.01 0.0110 1.10%
2.35 0.91 2 Bare Soil 0.04 0.01 0.0110 1.10% Needle-Leaved Evergreen 2.35 0.91 7 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Forest 2.35 0.91 8 Deciduous Shrubland 1.06 0.41 0.4505 45.05% 2.35 0.91 9 Evergreen Shrubland 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Xeromorphic Evergreen 2.35 0.91 11 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Shrubland 2.35 0.91 13 Grassland 0.69 0.27 0.2967 29.67% Temp-Flooded Cold Deciduous 2.35 0.91 20 0.22 0.08 0.0879 8.79% Wood 2.35 0.91 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 0.20 0.08 0.0879 8.79% Needle_Leaf Evergreen 2.35 0.91 29 0.13 0.05 0.0549 5.49% Woodland 2.35 0.91 1.0000 100.00%
Edwards Group Undivided 79.72 30.79 1 Water 2.07 0.80 0.0260 2.60% (Ks, Kft)(Kecw) 79.72 30.79 2 Bare Soil 0.49 0.19 0.0062 0.62% 79.72 30.79 4 Cropland 0.05 0.02 0.0006 0.06%
79.72 30.79 8 Deciduous Shrubland 34.74 13.41 0.4355 43.55% 79.72 30.79 9 Evergreen Shrubland 0.02 0.01 0.0003 0.03%
79.72 30.79 10 Drought Deciduous Shrubland 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00%
148 Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % Xeromorphic Evergreen 79.72 30.79 11 0.02 0.01 0.0003 0.03% Shrubland 79.72 30.79 13 Grassland 4.68 1.81 0.0588 5.88% 79.72 30.79 14 Sparse Shrub Layer 0.04 0.01 0.0003 0.03%
79.72 30.79 16 Mixed Urban or Built-up Land 0.04 0.02 0.0006 0.06% Semi-Flooded Temperate 79.72 30.79 17 0.02 0.01 0.0003 0.03% Grassland Temp-Flooded Cold Deciduous 79.72 30.79 20 13.91 5.37 0.1744 17.44% Wood 79.72 30.79 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 23.10 8.92 0.2897 28.97% Needle_Leaf Evergreen 79.72 30.79 29 0.54 0.21 0.0068 0.68% Woodland 79.72 30.79 1.0000 100.00%
Segovia Formation (Ks) 139.37 53.81 1 Water 0.33 0.13 0.0024 0.24%
139.37 53.81 2 Bare Soil 1.61 0.62 0.0115 1.15% 139.37 53.81 4 Cropland 0.02 0.01 0.0002 0.02%
139.37 53.81 8 Deciduous Shrubland 85.05 32.84 0.6103 61.03% 139.37 53.81 13 Grassland 20.76 8.01 0.1489 14.89% Temp-Flooded Cold Deciduous 139.37 53.81 20 16.00 6.18 0.1148 11.48% Wood 139.37 53.81 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 12.91 4.98 0.0925 9.25% Needle_Leaf Evergreen 139.37 53.81 29 2.69 1.04 0.0193 1.93% Woodland 139.37 53.81 1.0000 100.00%
149 Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % Fort Terrett (Kft) 326.42 126.04 1 Water 9.87 3.81 0.0302 3.02%
326.42 126.04 2 Bare Soil 2.97 1.15 0.0091 0.91% 326.42 126.04 4 Cropland 0.13 0.05 0.0004 0.04% Needle-Leaved Evergreen 326.42 126.04 7 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Forest 326.42 126.04 8 Deciduous Shrubland 189.32 73.10 0.5800 58.00%
326.42 126.04 9 Evergreen Shrubland 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 326.42 126.04 13 Grassland 25.24 9.75 0.0774 7.74% Temp-Flooded Cold Deciduous 326.42 126.04 20 32.40 12.51 0.0993 9.93% Wood 326.42 126.04 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 60.82 23.48 0.1863 18.63% Needle_Leaf Evergreen 326.42 126.04 29 5.66 2.19 0.0174 1.74% Woodland 326.42 126.04 1.0000 100.00%
Antlers Sand (Ka) 172.03 66.42 1 Water 12.09 4.67 0.0703 7.03%
172.03 66.42 2 Bare Soil 1.20 0.46 0.0069 0.69% 172.03 66.42 4 Cropland 0.05 0.02 0.0003 0.03%
172.03 66.42 8 Deciduous Shrubland 70.57 27.25 0.4103 41.03% 172.03 66.42 9 Evergreen Shrubland 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00%
172.03 66.42 10 Drought Deciduous Shrubland 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Xeromorphic Evergreen 172.03 66.42 11 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Shrubland Xeromorphic Subdesert 172.03 66.42 12 0.02 0.01 0.0002 0.02% Shrubland
150 Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % 172.03 66.42 13 Grassland 18.64 7.20 0.1084 10.84%
172.03 66.42 14 Sparse Shrub Layer 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Industrial and Commercial 172.03 66.42 15 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Complexes 172.03 66.42 16 Mixed Urban or Built-up Land 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Semi-Flooded Temperate 172.03 66.42 17 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Grassland Broad-Leaved Evergreen 172.03 66.42 19 0.02 0.01 0.0002 0.02% Shrubland Temp-Flooded Cold Deciduous 172.03 66.42 20 20.39 7.87 0.1185 11.85% Wood 172.03 66.42 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 46.13 17.81 0.2681 26.81% Needle_Leaf Evergreen 172.03 66.42 29 2.90 1.12 0.0169 1.69% Woodland 172.03 66.42 1.0000 100.00%
Dockum Group (TRd) 28.33 10.95 1 Water 0.39 0.15 0.0137 1.37% 28.33 10.95 2 Bare Soil 0.12 0.05 0.0046 0.46%
28.33 10.95 4 Cropland 0.02 0.01 0.0009 0.09% 28.33 10.95 8 Deciduous Shrubland 8.98 3.47 0.3169 31.69%
28.33 10.95 13 Grassland 4.59 1.77 0.1616 16.16% Temp-Flooded Cold Deciduous 28.33 10.95 20 7.30 2.82 0.2575 25.75% Wood 28.33 10.95 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 6.63 2.56 0.2338 23.38% Needle_Leaf Evergreen 28.33 10.95 29 0.30 0.12 0.0110 1.10% Woodland 28.33 10.95 1.0000 100.00%
151 Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % Quartermaster Formation 90.51 34.94 1 Water 1.21 0.47 0.0135 1.35% (IPq) 90.51 34.94 2 Bare Soil 0.31 0.12 0.0034 0.34% 90.51 34.94 4 Cropland 0.01 0.01 0.0003 0.03%
90.51 34.94 8 Deciduous Shrubland 37.02 14.29 0.4090 40.90% Xeromorphic Evergreen 90.51 34.94 11 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Shrubland Xeromorphic Subdesert 90.51 34.94 12 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Shrubland 90.51 34.94 13 Grassland 14.18 5.47 0.1566 15.66%
90.51 34.94 14 Sparse Shrub Layer 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 90.51 34.94 16 Mixed Urban or Built-up Land 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Semi-Flooded Temperate 90.51 34.94 17 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Grassland Temp-Flooded Cold Deciduous 90.51 34.94 20 14.14 5.46 0.1563 15.63% Wood 90.51 34.94 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 21.68 8.37 0.2396 23.96% Needle_Leaf Evergreen 90.51 34.94 29 1.95 0.75 0.0215 2.15% Woodland 90.51 34.94 1.0000 100.00%
Whitehorse Sandstone, Cloud Chief Gypsum and 9.07 3.50 1 Water 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Blaine Undivided (IPwb) 9.07 3.50 2 Bare Soil 0.11 0.04 0.0114 1.14%
9.07 3.50 5 Urban Area 0.10 0.04 0.0114 1.14%
9.07 3.50 8 Deciduous Shrubland 4.79 1.85 0.5286 52.86%
152 Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % 9.07 3.50 13 Grassland 2.12 0.82 0.2343 23.43% Temp-Flooded Cold Deciduous 9.07 3.50 20 0.37 0.14 0.0400 4.00% Wood 9.07 3.50 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 0.95 0.37 0.1057 10.57% Needle_Leaf Evergreen 9.07 3.50 29 0.62 0.24 0.0686 6.86% Woodland 9.07 3.50 1.0000 100.00%
Whitehorse Sandstone, Cloud Chief Undivided 384.91 148.63 1 Water 2.43 0.94 0.0063 0.63% (IPwh) 384.91 148.63 2 Bare Soil 4.26 1.65 0.0111 1.11%
384.91 148.63 4 Cropland 0.10 0.04 0.0003 0.03% 384.91 148.63 8 Deciduous Shrubland 185.58 71.65 0.4821 48.21% Xeromorphic Evergreen 384.91 148.63 11 0.01 0.01 0.0001 0.01% Shrubland Xeromorphic Subdesert 384.91 148.63 12 0.04 0.02 0.0001 0.01% Shrubland 384.91 148.63 13 Grassland 83.23 32.14 0.2162 21.62% 384.91 148.63 14 Sparse Shrub Layer 0.04 0.01 0.0001 0.01% Industrial and Commercial 384.91 148.63 15 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Complexes 384.91 148.63 16 Mixed Urban or Built-up Land 0.04 0.02 0.0001 0.01% Semi-Flooded Temperate 384.91 148.63 17 0.02 0.01 0.0001 0.01% Grassland Broad-Leaved Evergreen 384.91 148.63 19 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Shrubland
153 Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % Temp-Flooded Cold Deciduous 384.91 148.63 20 35.36 13.65 0.0918 9.18% Wood 384.91 148.63 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 50.29 19.42 0.1307 13.07% Needle_Leaf Evergreen 384.91 148.63 29 23.50 9.07 0.0610 6.10% Woodland 384.91 148.63 1.0000 100.00%
Blaine Formation (IPb) 107.74 41.61 1 Water 1.89 0.73 0.0175 1.75% 107.74 41.61 2 Bare Soil 0.23 0.09 0.0022 0.22%
107.74 41.61 4 Cropland 0.04 0.02 0.0005 0.05% 107.74 41.61 5 Urban Area 1.40 0.54 0.0130 1.30%
107.74 41.61 8 Deciduous Shrubland 42.89 16.56 0.3980 39.80% 107.74 41.61 13 Grassland 23.91 9.23 0.2218 22.18% Temp-Flooded Cold Deciduous 107.74 41.61 20 8.10 3.13 0.0752 7.52% Wood 107.74 41.61 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 21.80 8.42 0.2024 20.24% Needle_Leaf Evergreen 107.74 41.61 29 7.48 2.89 0.0695 6.95% Woodland 107.74 41.61 1.0000 100.00%
San Angelo (IPsa) 236.73 91.41 1 Water 4.49 1.74 0.0190 1.90%
236.73 91.41 2 Bare Soil 0.23 0.09 0.0010 0.10% 236.73 91.41 3 Rangeland 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00%
236.73 91.41 4 Cropland 0.32 0.12 0.0013 0.13%
236.73 91.41 8 Deciduous Shrubland 73.15 28.25 0.3090 30.90%
154 Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % 236.73 91.41 13 Grassland 63.21 24.41 0.2670 26.70% Temp-Flooded Cold Deciduous 236.73 91.41 20 10.15 3.92 0.0429 4.29% Wood 236.73 91.41 21 Short Sod Temperate Grassland 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 236.73 91.41 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 40.38 15.59 0.1706 17.06% Annual Graminoid or Forb 236.73 91.41 25 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Vegetation Needle_Leaf Evergreen 236.73 91.41 29 44.78 17.29 0.1891 18.91% Woodland 236.73 91.41 1.0000 100.00%
Clear Fork Group (IPcf) 120.13 46.37 1 Water 0.32 0.12 0.0026 0.26% 120.13 46.37 2 Bare Soil 0.45 0.17 0.0037 0.37%
120.13 46.37 4 Cropland 0.06 0.02 0.0004 0.04% 120.13 46.37 8 Deciduous Shrubland 49.42 19.08 0.4115 41.15%
120.13 46.37 13 Grassland 42.16 16.28 0.3511 35.11% Temp-Flooded Cold Deciduous 120.13 46.37 20 11.15 4.30 0.0927 9.27% Wood 120.13 46.37 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 10.94 4.23 0.0912 9.12% Needle_Leaf Evergreen 120.13 46.37 29 5.63 2.17 0.0468 4.68% Woodland 120.13 46.37 1.0000 100.00%
Water (W) 67.86 26.20 1 Water 25.15 9.71 0.3706 37.06%
67.86 26.20 2 Bare Soil 0.52 0.20 0.0076 0.76%
155 Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % 67.86 26.20 4 Cropland 0.57 0.22 0.0084 0.84% 67.86 26.20 8 Deciduous Shrubland 15.85 6.12 0.2336 23.36%
67.86 26.20 13 Grassland 8.60 3.32 0.1267 12.67% Temp-Flooded Cold Deciduous 67.86 26.20 20 5.34 2.06 0.0786 7.86% Wood 67.86 26.20 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 8.52 3.29 0.1256 12.56% Needle_Leaf Evergreen 67.86 26.20 29 3.32 1.28 0.0489 4.89% Woodland 67.86 26.20 1.0000 100.00%
Source: Coke County, Texas land cover area in square kilometers and mile is shown for each formation. Relative frequency and percentage is calculated for every formation in the county.
156 Table A15: Denton County, Texas Landcover on Geologic Formations
Km2 Mi2 Code Vegetation Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % Alluvium (Qal) 222.82 86.03 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 47.62 18.39 0.2138 21.38% 222.82 86.03 10 Drought Deciduous Shrubland 16.54 6.39 0.0743 7.43% 222.82 86.03 20 Temp-Flooded Cold-Deciduous Wood 39.18 15.13 0.1759 17.59% 222.82 86.03 1 Water 15.18 5.86 0.0681 6.81% 222.82 86.03 4 Cropland 40.94 15.81 0.1838 18.38% 222.82 86.03 5 Urban Area 5.41 2.09 0.0243 2.43% 222.82 86.03 7 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Forest 12.07 4.66 0.0542 5.42% 222.82 86.03 13 Medium-Tall Grassland 2.66 1.03 0.0120 1.20% 222.82 86.03 21 Short Sod Grassland 29.03 11.21 0.1303 13.03% 222.82 86.03 29 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Woodland 14.14 5.46 0.0635 6.35% 222.77 86.03 1.0000 100.00%
Fluviatile (Qt) 220.88 85.28 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 35.69 13.78 0.1616 16.16% 220.88 85.28 10 Drought Deciduous Shrubland 23.48 9.07 0.1064 10.64% 220.88 85.28 20 Temp-Flooded Cold-Deciduous Wood 7.81 3.01 0.0353 3.53% 220.88 85.28 1 Water 8.84 3.41 0.0400 4.00% 220.88 85.28 4 Cropland 57.16 22.07 0.2588 25.88% 220.88 85.28 5 Urban Area 20.75 8.01 0.0939 9.39% 220.88 85.28 7 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Forest 2.54 0.98 0.0115 1.15% 220.88 85.28 13 Medium-Tall Grassland 3.44 1.33 0.0156 1.56% 220.88 85.28 21 Short Sod Grassland 30.89 11.93 0.1399 13.99% 220.88 85.28 29 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Woodland 30.28 11.69 0.1371 13.71% 220.88 85.28 1.0000 100.00%
Surficial (Qu) 95.08 36.71 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 13.91 5.37 0.1463 14.63% 95.08 36.71 10 Drought Deciduous Shrubland 9.29 3.59 0.0978 9.78% 95.08 36.71 20 Temp-Flooded Cold-Deciduous Wood 3.06 1.18 0.0321 3.21%
157 Km2 Mi2 Code Vegetation Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % 95.08 36.71 1 Water 0.26 0.10 0.0027 0.27% 95.08 36.71 4 Cropland 37.60 14.52 0.3955 39.55% 95.08 36.71 5 Urban Area 13.30 5.14 0.1400 14.00% 95.08 36.71 7 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Forest 0.32 0.12 0.0033 0.33% 95.08 36.71 13 Medium-Tall Grassland 0.82 0.32 0.0087 0.87% 95.08 36.71 21 Short Sod Grassland 9.86 3.81 0.1038 10.38% 95.08 36.71 29 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Woodland 6.63 2.56 0.0697 6.97% 95.05 36.71 1.0000 100.00%
Austin Chalk 16.39 6.33 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 2.15 0.83 0.1311 13.11% (Kau) 16.39 6.33 10 Drought Deciduous Shrubland 1.99 0.77 0.1216 12.16% 16.39 6.33 20 Temp-Flooded Cold-Deciduous Wood 0.39 0.15 0.0237 2.37% 16.39 6.33 1 Water 0.02 0.01 0.0016 0.16% 16.39 6.33 4 Cropland 4.26 1.65 0.2607 26.07% 16.39 6.33 5 Urban Area 2.73 1.06 0.1675 16.75% 16.39 6.33 7 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Forest 0.16 0.06 0.0095 0.95% 16.39 6.33 13 Medium-Tall Grassland 1.07 0.41 0.0648 6.48% 16.39 6.33 21 Short Sod Grassland 1.19 0.46 0.0727 7.27% 16.39 6.33 29 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Woodland 2.40 0.93 0.1469 14.69% 16.36 6.33 1.0000 100.00%
Eagleford Shale 211.71 81.74 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 26.63 10.28 0.1258 12.58% (Kef) 211.71 81.74 10 Drought Deciduous Shrubland 15.88 6.13 0.0750 7.50% 211.71 81.74 20 Temp-Flooded Cold-Deciduous Wood 8.61 3.32 0.0406 4.06% 211.71 81.74 1 Water 6.03 2.33 0.0285 2.85% 211.71 81.74 4 Cropland 61.18 23.62 0.2890 28.90%
158 Km2 Mi2 Code Vegetation Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % 211.71 81.74 5 Urban Area 27.89 10.77 0.1318 13.18% 211.71 81.74 7 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Forest 2.02 0.78 0.0095 0.95% 211.71 81.74 13 Medium-Tall Grassland 3.93 1.52 0.0186 1.86% 211.71 81.74 21 Short Sod Grassland 42.45 16.39 0.2005 20.05% 211.71 81.74 29 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Woodland 17.10 6.60 0.0807 8.07% 211.72 81.74 1.0000 100.00%
Woodbine 571.22 220.55 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 74.35 28.71 0.1302 13.02% Sandstone (Kwb) 571.22 220.55 10 Drought Deciduous Shrubland 16.09 6.21 0.0282 2.82% 571.22 220.55 20 Temp-Flooded Cold-Deciduous Wood 21.91 8.46 0.0384 3.84% 571.22 220.55 1 Water 9.14 3.53 0.0160 1.60% 571.22 220.55 4 Cropland 141.83 54.76 0.2483 24.83% 571.22 220.55 5 Urban Area 75.83 29.28 0.1328 13.28% 571.22 220.55 7 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Forest 3.91 1.51 0.0068 0.68% 571.22 220.55 13 Medium-Tall Grassland 13.67 5.28 0.0239 2.39% 571.22 220.55 21 Short Sod Grassland 126.79 48.95 0.2219 22.19% 571.22 220.55 29 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Woodland 87.71 33.86 0.1535 15.35% 571.23 220.55 1.0000 100.00%
Dexter (Kwd) 1.30 0.50 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 0.51 0.20 0.4000 40.00% 1.30 0.50 10 Drought Deciduous Shrubland 0.04 0.02 0.0400 4.00% 1.30 0.50 20 Temp-Flooded Cold-Deciduous Wood 0.11 0.04 0.0800 8.00% 1.30 0.50 1 Water 0.11 0.04 0.0800 8.00% 1.30 0.50 4 Cropland 0.46 0.18 0.3600 36.00% 1.30 0.50 7 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Forest 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 1.30 0.50 13 Medium-Tall Grassland 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 1.30 0.50 21 Short Sod Grassland 0.02 0.01 0.0200 2.00%
159 Km2 Mi2 Code Vegetation Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % 1.30 0.50 29 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Woodland 0.04 0.01 0.0200 2.00% 1.31 0.50 1.0000 100.00%
Grayson 123.67 47.75 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 22.27 8.60 0.1801 18.01% Mainstreet (Kgm) 123.67 47.75 10 Drought Deciduous Shrubland 7.64 2.95 0.0618 6.18% 123.67 47.75 20 Temp-Flooded Cold-Deciduous Wood 2.78 1.07 0.0224 2.24% 123.67 47.75 1 Water 0.82 0.32 0.0067 0.67% 123.67 47.75 4 Cropland 34.88 13.47 0.2821 28.21% 123.67 47.75 5 Urban Area 23.49 9.07 0.1899 18.99% 123.67 47.75 7 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Forest 0.55 0.21 0.0044 0.44% 123.67 47.75 13 Medium-Tall Grassland 1.01 0.39 0.0082 0.82% 123.67 47.75 21 Short Sod Grassland 11.45 4.42 0.0926 9.26% 123.67 47.75 29 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Woodland 18.79 7.25 0.1518 15.18% 123.68 47.75 1.0000 100.00%
Pawpaw (Kpp) 6.27 2.42 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 1.73 0.67 0.2769 27.69% 6.27 2.42 10 Drought Deciduous Shrubland 0.24 0.09 0.0372 3.72% 6.27 2.42 20 Temp-Flooded Cold-Deciduous Wood 0.23 0.09 0.0372 3.72% 6.27 2.42 1 Water 0.45 0.18 0.0744 7.44% 6.27 2.42 4 Cropland 2.83 1.09 0.4504 45.04% 6.27 2.42 5 Urban Area 0.02 0.01 0.0041 0.41% 6.27 2.42 7 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Forest 0.10 0.04 0.0165 1.65% 6.27 2.42 13 Medium-Tall Grassland 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 6.27 2.42 21 Short Sod Grassland 0.30 0.11 0.0455 4.55% 6.27 2.42 29 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Woodland 0.35 0.14 0.0579 5.79% 6.26 2.42 1.0000 100.00%
160 Km2 Mi2 Code Vegetation Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % Weno (Kwe) 0.10 0.04 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 0.06 0.02 0.5000 50.00% 0.10 0.04 20 Temp-Flooded Cold-Deciduous Wood 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 0.10 0.04 1 Water 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 0.10 0.04 4 Cropland 0.05 0.02 0.5000 50.00% 0.10 0.04 7 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Forest 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 0.13 0.04 1.0000 100.00%
Denton Clay (Kd) 15.58 6.02 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 6.13 2.37 0.3937 39.37% 15.58 6.02 10 Drought Deciduous Shrubland 1.74 0.67 0.1113 11.13% 15.58 6.02 20 Temp-Flooded Cold-Deciduous Wood 0.07 0.03 0.0050 0.50% 15.58 6.02 1 Water 0.87 0.34 0.0565 5.65% 15.58 6.02 4 Cropland 3.89 1.50 0.2492 24.92% 15.58 6.02 5 Urban Area 0.09 0.04 0.0066 0.66% 15.58 6.02 7 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Forest 0.09 0.04 0.0066 0.66% 15.58 6.02 13 Medium-Tall Grassland 0.14 0.05 0.0083 0.83% 15.58 6.02 21 Short Sod Grassland 0.73 0.28 0.0465 4.65% 15.58 6.02 29 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Woodland 1.82 0.70 0.1163 11.63% 15.57 6.02 1.0000 100.00%
Bochito (Kpd) 213.75 82.53 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 52.85 20.41 0.2473 24.73% 213.75 82.53 10 Drought Deciduous Shrubland 20.99 8.10 0.0981 9.81% 213.75 82.53 20 Temp-Flooded Cold-Deciduous Wood 2.88 1.11 0.0134 1.34% 213.75 82.53 1 Water 1.11 0.43 0.0052 0.52% 213.75 82.53 4 Cropland 71.17 27.48 0.3330 33.30% 213.75 82.53 5 Urban Area 6.99 2.70 0.0327 3.27% 213.75 82.53 7 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Forest 0.81 0.31 0.0038 0.38% 213.75 82.53 13 Medium-Tall Grassland 2.68 1.04 0.0126 1.26% 213.75 82.53 21 Short Sod Grassland 19.34 7.47 0.0905 9.05%
161 Km2 Mi2 Code Vegetation Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % 213.75 82.53 29 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Woodland 34.92 13.48 0.1633 16.33% 213.74 82.53 1.0000 100.00%
Fort Worth (Kfw) 55.94 21.6 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 11.68 4.51 0.2088 20.88% 55.94 21.6 10 Drought Deciduous Shrubland 6.28 2.43 0.1125 11.25% 55.94 21.6 20 Temp-Flooded Cold-Deciduous Wood 0.97 0.37 0.0171 1.71% 55.94 21.6 1 Water 0.15 0.06 0.0028 0.28% 55.94 21.6 4 Cropland 16.81 6.49 0.3005 30.05% 55.94 21.6 5 Urban Area 4.58 1.77 0.0819 8.19% 55.94 21.6 7 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Forest 0.05 0.02 0.0009 0.09% 55.94 21.6 13 Medium-Tall Grassland 0.60 0.23 0.0106 1.06% 55.94 21.6 21 Short Sod Grassland 6.48 2.50 0.1157 11.57% 55.94 21.6 29 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Woodland 8.34 3.22 0.1491 14.91% 55.94 21.60 1.0000 100.00%
Duck Creek 32.14 12.41 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 9.52 3.68 0.2965 29.65% (Kdc) 32.14 12.41 10 Drought Deciduous Shrubland 4.30 1.66 0.1338 13.38% 32.14 12.41 20 Temp-Flooded Cold-Deciduous Wood 0.45 0.17 0.0137 1.37% 32.14 12.41 1 Water 0.08 0.03 0.0024 0.24% 32.14 12.41 4 Cropland 10.23 3.95 0.3183 31.83% 32.14 12.41 5 Urban Area 0.25 0.10 0.0081 0.81% 32.14 12.41 7 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Forest 0.15 0.06 0.0048 0.48% 32.14 12.41 13 Medium-Tall Grassland 0.17 0.07 0.0056 0.56% 32.14 12.41 21 Short Sod Grassland 2.60 1.00 0.0806 8.06% 32.14 12.41 29 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Woodland 4.39 1.69 0.1362 13.62% 32.14 12.41 1.0000 100.00%
162 Km2 Mi2 Code Vegetation Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % Caddo (Kc) 457.93 176.81 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 103.18 39.84 0.2253 22.53% 457.93 176.81 10 Drought Deciduous Shrubland 54.05 20.87 0.1180 11.80% 457.93 176.81 20 Temp-Flooded Cold-Deciduous Wood 9.67 3.73 0.0211 2.11% 457.93 176.81 1 Water 0.90 0.35 0.0020 0.20% 457.93 176.81 4 Cropland 154.27 59.56 0.3369 33.69% 457.93 176.81 5 Urban Area 4.20 1.62 0.0092 0.92% 457.93 176.81 7 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Forest 1.05 0.41 0.0023 0.23% 457.93 176.81 13 Medium-Tall Grassland 5.41 2.09 0.0118 1.18% 457.93 176.81 21 Short Sod Grassland 56.49 21.81 0.1234 12.34% 457.93 176.81 29 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Woodland 68.71 26.53 0.1500 15.00% 457.93 176.81 1.0000 100.00%
Kiamichi (Kki) 21.11 8.14 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 7.61 2.94 0.3612 36.12% 21.11 8.14 10 Drought Deciduous Shrubland 2.22 0.86 0.1057 10.57% 21.11 8.14 20 Temp-Flooded Cold-Deciduous Wood 0.36 0.14 0.0172 1.72% 21.11 8.14 1 Water 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 21.11 8.14 4 Cropland 6.28 2.42 0.2973 29.73% 21.11 8.14 5 Urban Area 0.05 0.02 0.0025 0.25% 21.11 8.14 7 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Forest 0.09 0.03 0.0037 0.37% 21.11 8.14 13 Medium-Tall Grassland 0.05 0.02 0.0025 0.25% 21.11 8.14 21 Short Sod Grassland 1.66 0.64 0.0786 7.86% 21.11 8.14 29 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Woodland 2.78 1.07 0.1314 13.14% 21.11 8.14 1.0000 100.00%
Goodland (Kgw) 29.29 11.32 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 12.72 4.91 0.4337 43.37% 29.29 11.32 10 Drought Deciduous Shrubland 2.92 1.13 0.0998 9.98% 29.29 11.32 20 Temp-Flooded Cold-Deciduous Wood 0.64 0.25 0.0221 2.21% 29.29 11.32 1 Water 0.18 0.07 0.0062 0.62%
163 Km2 Mi2 Code Vegetation Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % 29.29 11.32 4 Cropland 7.14 2.76 0.2438 24.38% 29.29 11.32 5 Urban Area 0.09 0.03 0.0027 0.27% 29.29 11.32 7 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Forest 0.19 0.07 0.0062 0.62% 29.29 11.32 13 Medium-Tall Grassland 0.19 0.08 0.0071 0.71% 29.29 11.32 21 Short Sod Grassland 3.34 1.29 0.1140 11.40% 29.29 11.32 29 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Woodland 1.88 0.73 0.0645 6.45% 29.29 11.32 1.0000 100.00%
Antler Sand (Ka) 3.14 1.21 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 1.28 0.49 0.4050 40.50% 3.14 1.21 10 Drought Deciduous Shrubland 0.05 0.02 0.0165 1.65% 3.14 1.21 20 Temp-Flooded Cold-Deciduous Wood 0.12 0.05 0.0413 4.13% 3.14 1.21 1 Water 0.07 0.03 0.0248 2.48% 3.14 1.21 4 Cropland 0.76 0.29 0.2397 23.97% 3.14 1.21 5 Urban Area 0.02 0.01 0.0083 0.83% 3.14 1.21 7 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Forest 0.03 0.01 0.0083 0.83% 3.14 1.21 13 Medium-Tall Grassland 0.03 0.01 0.0083 0.83% 3.14 1.21 21 Short Sod Grassland 0.66 0.25 0.2066 20.66% 3.14 1.21 29 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Woodland 0.12 0.05 0.0413 4.13% 3.14 1.21 1.0000 100.00%
Water (W) 171.91 66.36 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 8.30 3.20 0.0482 4.82% 171.91 66.36 10 Drought Deciduous Shrubland 0.63 0.24 0.0036 0.36% 171.91 66.36 20 Temp-Flooded Cold-Deciduous Wood 2.07 0.80 0.0121 1.21% 171.91 66.36 1 Water 149.44 57.70 0.8695 86.95% 171.91 66.36 4 Cropland 5.45 2.10 0.0316 3.16% 171.91 66.36 5 Urban Area 0.94 0.36 0.0054 0.54% 171.91 66.36 7 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Forest 2.22 0.86 0.0130 1.30% 171.91 66.36 13 Medium-Tall Grassland 0.14 0.05 0.0008 0.08%
164 Km2 Mi2 Code Vegetation Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % 171.91 66.36 21 Short Sod Grassland 1.87 0.72 0.0108 1.08% 171.91 66.36 29 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Woodland 0.85 0.33 0.0050 0.50% 171.91 66.36 1.0000 100.00%
Source: Denton County, Texas land cover area in square kilometers and mile is shown for each formation. Relative frequency and percentage is calculated for every formation in the county.
165 Table A16: Choctaw County, Oklahoma Landcover on Geologic Formations
Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % Quaternary (Qal) 224.65 86.71 59 Oak Woodland 3.84 1.48 0.0171 1.71% 224.65 86.71 85 Tallgrass Oak Savanna 18.06 6.97 0.0804 8.04% 224.65 86.71 102 Midgrass Oak Savanna 0.29 0.11 0.0013 0.13% 224.65 86.71 19 Eastern Crosstimbers 25.56 9.87 0.1138 11.38% 224.65 86.71 56 Oak - Pine Woodland 2.73 1.05 0.0121 1.21% 224.65 86.71 15 Oak - Pine Forests 11.68 4.51 0.0520 5.20% 224.65 86.71 14 Oak - Hickory - Pine Forests 1.84 0.71 0.0082 0.82% 224.65 86.71 16 Oak - Cedar Forests 0.68 0.26 0.0030 0.30% 224.65 86.71 6 Shortleaf Pine - Oak Forests 8.27 3.19 0.0368 3.68% 224.65 86.71 42 Pine - Oak Woodland 4.97 1.92 0.0221 2.21% 224.65 86.71 8 Loblolly Pine - Oak Forest 0.66 0.25 0.0029 0.29% 224.65 86.71 52 Eastern Red Cedar & Oak 0.77 0.30 0.0035 0.35% 224.65 86.71 5 Shortleaf Pine Forest 0.45 0.17 0.0020 0.20% 224.65 86.71 7 Loblolly Pine Forest 0.35 0.13 0.0015 0.15% 224.65 86.71 31 East Central Bottomland 23.32 9.00 0.1038 10.38% 224.65 86.71 51 Eastern Red Cedar Wood 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 224.65 86.71 91 Tall Grass Prairie 32.14 12.41 0.1431 14.31% 224.65 86.71 112 Midgrass Prairie 0.07 0.03 0.0003 0.03% 224.65 86.71 147 Crop 5.80 2.24 0.0258 2.58% 224.65 86.71 149 Introduced Pasture 70.00 27.03 0.3117 31.17% 224.65 86.71 153 Residential / Industrial 0.05 0.02 0.0002 0.02% 224.65 86.71 156 Riverine 8.45 3.26 0.0376 3.76% 224.65 86.71 157 Lake / Reservoir 1.03 0.40 0.0046 0.46% 224.65 86.71 158 Pond 0.42 0.16 0.0018 0.18% 224.65 86.71 160 Loblolly Pine Cultivated 1.11 0.43 0.0050 0.50% 224.65 86.71 162 Tallgrass Cedar Savanna 0.03 0.01 0.0001 0.01% 224.65 86.71 0 Other 2.07 0.80 0.0092 0.92%
166 Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % 224.65 86.71 1.0000 100.00%
Terrace (Qt) 271.59 104.86 59 Oak Woodland 2.69 1.04 0.0099 0.99% 271.59 104.86 85 Tallgrass Oak Savanna 17.50 6.76 0.0645 6.45% 271.59 104.86 102 Midgrass Oak Savanna 0.21 0.08 0.0008 0.08% 271.59 104.86 19 Eastern Crosstimbers 28.57 11.03 0.1052 10.52% 271.59 104.86 56 Oak - Pine Woodland 5.10 1.97 0.0188 1.88% 271.59 104.86 15 Oak - Pine Forests 13.45 5.19 0.0495 4.95% 271.59 104.86 14 Oak - Hickory - Pine Forests 2.38 0.92 0.0088 0.88% 271.59 104.86 16 Oak - Cedar Forests 0.42 0.16 0.0015 0.15% 271.59 104.86 6 Shortleaf Pine - Oak Forests 8.16 3.15 0.0300 3.00% 271.59 104.86 42 Pine - Oak Woodland 5.82 2.25 0.0215 2.15% 271.59 104.86 8 Loblolly Pine - Oak Forest 0.26 0.10 0.0010 0.10% 271.59 104.86 52 Eastern Red Cedar & Oak 0.33 0.13 0.0012 0.12% 271.59 104.86 5 Shortleaf Pine Forest 0.47 0.18 0.0017 0.17% 271.59 104.86 7 Loblolly Pine Forest 0.29 0.11 0.0010 0.10% 271.59 104.86 31 East Central Bottomland 18.67 7.21 0.0688 6.88% 271.59 104.86 51 Eastern Red Cedar Wood 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 271.59 104.86 91 Tall Grass Prairie 52.63 20.32 0.1938 19.38% 271.59 104.86 112 Midgrass Prairie 0.07 0.03 0.0003 0.03% 271.59 104.86 147 Crop 3.42 1.32 0.0126 1.26% 271.59 104.86 149 Introduced Pasture 105.68 40.80 0.3891 38.91% 271.59 104.86 153 Residential / Industrial 0.09 0.03 0.0003 0.03% 271.59 104.86 156 Riverine 1.12 0.43 0.0041 0.41% 271.59 104.86 157 Lake / Reservoir 2.66 1.03 0.0098 0.98% 271.59 104.86 158 Pond 1.26 0.49 0.0047 0.47% 271.59 104.86 160 Loblolly Pine Cultivated 0.26 0.10 0.0010 0.10% 271.59 104.86 162 Tallgrass Cedar Savanna 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00%
167 Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % 271.59 104.86 0 Other 0.07 0.03 0.0003 0.03% 271.59 104.86 1.0000 100.00%
Woodbine (Kwb) 278.91 107.69 59 Oak Woodland 10.66 4.12 0.0383 3.83% 278.91 107.69 85 Tallgrass Oak Savanna 16.01 6.18 0.0574 5.74% 278.91 107.69 102 Midgrass Oak Savanna 0.53 0.21 0.0020 0.20% 278.91 107.69 19 Eastern Crosstimbers 50.18 19.38 0.1800 18.00% 278.91 107.69 56 Oak - Pine Woodland 2.48 0.96 0.0089 0.89% 278.91 107.69 14 Oak - Hickory - Pine Forests 0.13 0.05 0.0005 0.05% 278.91 107.69 15 Oak - Pine Forests 1.93 0.75 0.0070 0.70% 278.91 107.69 16 Oak - Cedar Forests 0.50 0.19 0.0018 0.18% 278.91 107.69 6 Shortleaf Pine - Oak Forests 1.12 0.43 0.0040 0.40% 278.91 107.69 42 Pine - Oak Woodland 2.28 0.88 0.0082 0.82% 278.91 107.69 8 Loblolly Pine - Oak Forest 0.16 0.06 0.0006 0.06% 278.91 107.69 52 Eastern Red Cedar & Oak 1.30 0.50 0.0046 0.46% 278.91 107.69 5 Shortleaf Pine Forest 0.02 0.01 0.0001 0.01% 278.91 107.69 7 Loblolly Pine Forest 0.06 0.02 0.0002 0.02% 278.91 107.69 31 East Central Bottomland 5.85 2.26 0.0210 2.10% 278.91 107.69 51 Eastern Red Cedar Wood 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 278.91 107.69 91 Tall Grass Prairie 56.35 21.76 0.2021 20.21% 278.91 107.69 112 Midgrass Prairie 0.17 0.06 0.0006 0.06% 278.91 107.69 147 Crop 2.45 0.95 0.0088 0.88% 278.91 107.69 149 Introduced Pasture 126.24 48.74 0.4526 45.26% 278.91 107.69 153 Residential / Industrial 0.07 0.03 0.0003 0.03% 278.91 107.69 156 Riverine 0.06 0.02 0.0002 0.02% 278.91 107.69 157 Lake / Reservoir 0.08 0.03 0.0003 0.03% 278.91 107.69 158 Pond 0.06 0.02 0.0002 0.02% 278.91 107.69 160 Loblolly Pine Cultivated 0.11 0.04 0.0004 0.04%
168 Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % 278.91 107.69 162 Tallgrass Cedar Savanna 0.07 0.03 0.0003 0.03% 278.91 107.69 0 Other 0.03 0.01 0.0001 0.01% 278.91 107.69 1.0000 100.00%
Bennington (Kgb) 7.54 2.91 59 Oak Woodland 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 7.54 2.91 85 Tallgrass Oak Savanna 0.42 0.16 0.0550 5.50% 7.54 2.91 19 Eastern Crosstimbers 1.63 0.63 0.2165 21.65% 7.54 2.91 15 Oak - Pine Forests 0.07 0.03 0.0103 1.03% 7.54 2.91 56 Oak - Pine Woodland 0.05 0.02 0.0069 0.69% 7.54 2.91 14 Oak - Hickory - Pine Forests 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 7.54 2.91 6 Shortleaf Pine - Oak Forests 0.05 0.02 0.0069 0.69% 7.54 2.91 8 Loblolly Pine - Oak Forest 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 7.54 2.91 42 Pine - Oak Woodland 0.27 0.10 0.0344 3.44% 7.54 2.91 31 East Central Bottomland 0.33 0.13 0.0447 4.47% 7.54 2.91 91 Tall Grass Prairie 1.75 0.68 0.2337 23.37% 7.54 2.91 149 Introduced Pasture 2.95 1.14 0.3918 39.18% 7.54 2.91 153 Residential / Industrial 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 7.54 2.91 1.0000 100.00%
Pawpaw (Kpm) 114.23 44.08 59 Oak Woodland 0.44 0.17 0.0039 0.39% 114.23 44.08 85 Tallgrass Oak Savanna 6.75 2.61 0.0592 5.92% 114.23 44.08 102 Midgrass Oak Savanna 0.13 0.05 0.0011 0.11% 114.23 44.08 19 Eastern Crosstimbers 14.09 5.44 0.1234 12.34% 114.23 44.08 56 Oak - Pine Woodland 0.81 0.31 0.0070 0.70% 114.23 44.08 15 Oak - Pine Forests 0.47 0.18 0.0041 0.41% 114.23 44.08 14 Oak - Hickory - Pine Forests 0.06 0.02 0.0005 0.05% 114.23 44.08 16 Oak - Cedar Forests 0.06 0.02 0.0005 0.05% 114.23 44.08 6 Shortleaf Pine - Oak Forests 0.50 0.19 0.0043 0.43%
169 Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % 114.23 44.08 8 Loblolly Pine - Oak Forest 0.02 0.01 0.0002 0.02% 114.23 44.08 42 Pine - Oak Woodland 1.54 0.59 0.0134 1.34% 114.23 44.08 52 Eastern Red Cedar & Oak 0.19 0.07 0.0016 0.16% 114.23 44.08 5 Shortleaf Pine Forest 0.02 0.01 0.0002 0.02% 114.23 44.08 7 Loblolly Pine Forest 0.02 0.01 0.0002 0.02% 114.23 44.08 31 East Central Bottomland 3.86 1.49 0.0338 3.38% 114.23 44.08 91 Tall Grass Prairie 31.48 12.15 0.2756 27.56% 114.23 44.08 112 Midgrass Prairie 0.04 0.01 0.0002 0.02% 114.23 44.08 147 Crop 0.30 0.11 0.0025 0.25% 114.23 44.08 149 Introduced Pasture 52.99 20.46 0.4642 46.42% 114.23 44.08 153 Residential / Industrial 0.38 0.15 0.0034 0.34% 114.23 44.08 156 Riverine 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 114.23 44.08 157 Lake / Reservoir 0.05 0.02 0.0005 0.05% 114.23 44.08 158 Pond 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 114.23 44.08 160 Loblolly Pine Cultivated 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 114.23 44.08 162 Tallgrass Cedar Savanna 0.02 0.01 0.0002 0.02% 114.23 44.08 1.0000 100.00%
Weno (Kws) 91.41 35.28 59 Oak Woodland 0.56 0.22 0.0062 0.62% 91.41 35.28 85 Tallgrass Oak Savanna 6.18 2.38 0.0675 6.75% 91.41 35.28 102 Midgrass Oak Savanna 0.10 0.04 0.0011 0.11% 91.41 35.28 19 Eastern Crosstimbers 10.00 3.86 0.1094 10.94% 91.41 35.28 56 Oak - Pine Woodland 0.50 0.19 0.0054 0.54% 91.41 35.28 14 Oak - Hickory - Pine Forests 0.04 0.02 0.0006 0.06% 91.41 35.28 15 Oak - Pine Forests 0.33 0.13 0.0037 0.37% 91.41 35.28 16 Oak - Cedar Forests 0.21 0.08 0.0023 0.23% 91.41 35.28 6 Shortleaf Pine - Oak Forests 0.21 0.08 0.0023 0.23% 91.41 35.28 42 Pine - Oak Woodland 1.14 0.44 0.0125 1.25%
170 Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % 91.41 35.28 8 Loblolly Pine - Oak Forest 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 91.41 35.28 52 Eastern Red Cedar & Oak 0.24 0.09 0.0026 0.26% 91.41 35.28 5 Shortleaf Pine Forest 0.02 0.01 0.0003 0.03% 91.41 35.28 7 Loblolly Pine Forest 0.02 0.01 0.0003 0.03% 91.41 35.28 31 East Central Bottomland 1.75 0.67 0.0190 1.90% 91.41 35.28 51 Eastern Red Cedar Wood 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 91.41 35.28 91 Tall Grass Prairie 24.58 9.49 0.2690 26.90% 91.41 35.28 112 Midgrass Prairie 0.07 0.03 0.0009 0.09% 91.41 35.28 147 Crop 0.43 0.16 0.0045 0.45% 91.41 35.28 149 Introduced Pasture 41.92 16.18 0.4586 45.86% 91.41 35.28 153 Residential / Industrial 2.98 1.15 0.0326 3.26% 91.41 35.28 157 Lake / Reservoir 0.05 0.02 0.0006 0.06% 91.41 35.28 158 Pond 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 91.41 35.28 160 Loblolly Pine Cultivated 0.04 0.02 0.0006 0.06% 91.41 35.28 162 Tallgrass Cedar Savanna 0.03 0.01 0.0003 0.03% 91.41 35.28 1.0000 100.00%
Denton Clay (Kd) 95.03 36.68 59 Oak Woodland 0.73 0.28 0.0076 0.76% 95.03 36.68 85 Tallgrass Oak Savanna 6.37 2.46 0.0671 6.71% 95.03 36.68 102 Midgrass Oak Savanna 0.46 0.18 0.0049 0.49% 95.03 36.68 19 Eastern Crosstimbers 6.44 2.49 0.0679 6.79% 95.03 36.68 56 Oak - Pine Woodland 0.45 0.17 0.0046 0.46% 95.03 36.68 15 Oak - Pine Forests 0.60 0.23 0.0063 0.63% 95.03 36.68 14 Oak - Hickory - Pine Forests 0.03 0.01 0.0003 0.03% 95.03 36.68 16 Oak - Cedar Forests 0.41 0.16 0.0044 0.44% 95.03 36.68 6 Shortleaf Pine - Oak Forests 0.18 0.07 0.0019 0.19% 95.03 36.68 42 Pine - Oak Woodland 0.84 0.33 0.0090 0.90% 95.03 36.68 8 Loblolly Pine - Oak Forest 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00%
171 Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % 95.03 36.68 52 Eastern Red Cedar & Oak 0.31 0.12 0.0033 0.33% 95.03 36.68 5 Shortleaf Pine Forest 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 95.03 36.68 7 Loblolly Pine Forest 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 95.03 36.68 31 East Central Bottomland 1.41 0.54 0.0147 1.47% 95.03 36.68 51 Eastern Red Cedar Wood 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 95.03 36.68 91 Tall Grass Prairie 28.94 11.17 0.3045 30.45% 95.03 36.68 112 Midgrass Prairie 0.11 0.04 0.0011 0.11% 95.03 36.68 147 Crop 0.33 0.13 0.0035 0.35% 95.03 36.68 149 Introduced Pasture 45.05 17.39 0.4741 47.41% 95.03 36.68 153 Residential / Industrial 2.24 0.86 0.0234 2.34% 95.03 36.68 156 Riverine 0.04 0.02 0.0005 0.05% 95.03 36.68 157 Lake / Reservoir 0.02 0.01 0.0003 0.03% 95.03 36.68 158 Pond 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 95.03 36.68 160 Loblolly Pine Cultivated 0.03 0.01 0.0003 0.03% 95.03 36.68 162 Tallgrass Cedar Savanna 0.02 0.01 0.0003 0.03% 95.03 36.68 1.0000 100.00%
Caddo (Kc) 205.68 79.42 59 Oak Woodland 2.97 1.15 0.0145 1.45% 205.68 79.42 85 Tallgrass Oak Savanna 17.51 6.76 0.0851 8.51% 205.68 79.42 102 Midgrass Oak Savanna 1.18 0.46 0.0058 0.58% 205.68 79.42 19 Eastern Crosstimbers 22.27 8.60 0.1083 10.83% 205.68 79.42 42 Pine - Oak Woodland 15.25 5.89 0.0742 7.42% 205.68 79.42 56 Oak - Pine Woodland 5.16 1.99 0.0251 2.51% 205.68 79.42 15 Oak - Pine Forests 17.11 6.61 0.0832 8.32% 205.68 79.42 14 Oak - Hickory - Pine Forests 0.98 0.38 0.0048 0.48% 205.68 79.42 16 Oak - Cedar Forests 1.18 0.45 0.0057 0.57% 205.68 79.42 6 Shortleaf Pine - Oak Forests 6.41 2.48 0.0312 3.12% 205.68 79.42 8 Loblolly Pine - Oak Forest 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00%
172 Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % 205.68 79.42 52 Eastern Red Cedar & Oak 0.99 0.38 0.0048 0.48% 205.68 79.42 5 Shortleaf Pine Forest 0.07 0.03 0.0004 0.04% 205.68 79.42 7 Loblolly Pine Forest 0.78 0.30 0.0038 0.38% 205.68 79.42 31 East Central Bottomland 1.93 0.74 0.0093 0.93% 205.68 79.42 51 Eastern Red Cedar Wood 0.02 0.01 0.0001 0.01% 205.68 79.42 91 Tall Grass Prairie 42.74 16.50 0.2078 20.78% 205.68 79.42 112 Midgrass Prairie 0.41 0.16 0.0020 0.20% 205.68 79.42 147 Crop 0.26 0.10 0.0013 0.13% 205.68 79.42 149 Introduced Pasture 67.53 26.07 0.3283 32.83% 205.68 79.42 153 Residential / Industrial 0.02 0.01 0.0001 0.01% 205.68 79.42 156 Riverine 0.16 0.06 0.0008 0.08% 205.68 79.42 157 Lake / Reservoir 0.49 0.19 0.0024 0.24% 205.68 79.42 158 Pond 0.02 0.01 0.0001 0.01% 205.68 79.42 160 Loblolly Pine Cultivated 0.08 0.03 0.0004 0.04% 205.68 79.42 162 Tallgrass Cedar Savanna 0.15 0.06 0.0008 0.08% 205.68 79.42 1.0000 100.00%
Kiamichi (Kki) 148.95 57.52 59 Oak Woodland 0.98 0.38 0.0066 0.66% 148.95 57.52 85 Tallgrass Oak Savanna 10.59 4.09 0.0711 7.11% 148.95 57.52 102 Midgrass Oak Savanna 0.32 0.12 0.0021 0.21% 148.95 57.52 19 Eastern Crosstimbers 15.79 6.10 0.1061 10.61% 148.95 57.52 56 Oak - Pine Woodland 2.68 1.04 0.0181 1.81% 148.95 57.52 15 Oak - Pine Forests 6.73 2.60 0.0452 4.52% 148.95 57.52 14 Oak - Hickory - Pine Forests 0.37 0.14 0.0024 0.24% 148.95 57.52 16 Oak - Cedar Forests 0.75 0.29 0.0050 0.50% 148.95 57.52 6 Shortleaf Pine - Oak Forests 2.87 1.11 0.0193 1.93% 148.95 57.52 42 Pine - Oak Woodland 6.00 2.32 0.0403 4.03% 148.95 57.52 8 Loblolly Pine - Oak Forest 0.03 0.01 0.0002 0.02%
173 Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % 148.95 57.52 52 Eastern Red Cedar & Oak 0.29 0.11 0.0019 0.19% 148.95 57.52 5 Shortleaf Pine Forest 0.06 0.03 0.0005 0.05% 148.95 57.52 7 Loblolly Pine Forest 0.36 0.14 0.0024 0.24% 148.95 57.52 31 East Central Bottomland 1.55 0.60 0.0104 1.04% 148.95 57.52 91 Tall Grass Prairie 36.55 14.11 0.2453 24.53% 148.95 57.52 51 Eastern Red Cedar Wood 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 148.95 57.52 112 Midgrass Prairie 0.27 0.10 0.0017 0.17% 148.95 57.52 147 Crop 0.64 0.25 0.0043 0.43% 148.95 57.52 149 Introduced Pasture 60.98 23.54 0.4092 40.92% 148.95 57.52 153 Residential / Industrial 0.25 0.10 0.0017 0.17% 148.95 57.52 156 Riverine 0.03 0.01 0.0002 0.02% 148.95 57.52 157 Lake / Reservoir 0.62 0.24 0.0042 0.42% 148.95 57.52 158 Pond 0.14 0.05 0.0009 0.09% 148.95 57.52 160 Loblolly Pine Cultivated 0.05 0.02 0.0003 0.03% 148.95 57.52 162 Tallgrass Cedar Savanna 0.04 0.02 0.0003 0.03% 148.95 57.52 1.0000 100.00%
Goodland (Kgw) 72.69 28.08 59 Oak Woodland 0.77 0.30 0.0107 1.07% 72.69 28.08 85 Tallgrass Oak Savanna 4.56 1.76 0.0627 6.27% 72.69 28.08 102 Midgrass Oak Savanna 0.36 0.14 0.0050 0.50% 72.69 28.08 19 Eastern Crosstimbers 8.79 3.40 0.1211 12.11% 72.69 28.08 56 Oak - Pine Woodland 0.83 0.32 0.0114 1.14% 72.69 28.08 15 Oak - Pine Forests 2.11 0.82 0.0292 2.92% 72.69 28.08 14 Oak - Hickory - Pine Forests 0.12 0.05 0.0018 0.18% 72.69 28.08 16 Oak - Cedar Forests 0.88 0.34 0.0121 1.21% 72.69 28.08 6 Shortleaf Pine - Oak Forests 1.27 0.49 0.0175 1.75% 72.69 28.08 42 Pine - Oak Woodland 1.33 0.52 0.0185 1.85% 72.69 28.08 8 Loblolly Pine - Oak Forest 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00%
174 Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % 72.69 28.08 52 Eastern Red Cedar & Oak 0.44 0.17 0.0061 0.61% 72.69 28.08 5 Shortleaf Pine Forest 0.04 0.02 0.0007 0.07% 72.69 28.08 7 Loblolly Pine Forest 0.10 0.04 0.0014 0.14% 72.69 28.08 31 East Central Bottomland 1.85 0.71 0.0253 2.53% 72.69 28.08 91 Tall Grass Prairie 16.24 6.27 0.2233 22.33% 72.69 28.08 112 Midgrass Prairie 0.20 0.08 0.0028 0.28% 72.69 28.08 147 Crop 0.18 0.07 0.0025 0.25% 72.69 28.08 149 Introduced Pasture 32.26 12.45 0.4434 44.34% 72.69 28.08 153 Residential / Industrial 0.08 0.03 0.0011 0.11% 72.69 28.08 156 Riverine 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 72.69 28.08 157 Lake / Reservoir 0.14 0.05 0.0018 0.18% 72.69 28.08 158 Pond 0.06 0.02 0.0007 0.07% 72.69 28.08 160 Loblolly Pine Cultivated 0.02 0.01 0.0004 0.04% 72.69 28.08 162 Tallgrass Cedar Savanna 0.05 0.02 0.0007 0.07% 72.69 28.08 1.0000 100.00%
Antlers (Ka) 469.20 181.15 59 Oak Woodland 2.59 1.00 0.0055 0.55% 469.20 181.15 85 Tallgrass Oak Savanna 22.92 8.85 0.0489 4.89% 469.20 181.15 102 Midgrass Oak Savanna 0.32 0.12 0.0007 0.07% 469.20 181.15 19 Eastern Crosstimbers 65.82 25.41 0.1403 14.03% 469.20 181.15 56 Oak - Pine Woodland 9.99 3.86 0.0213 2.13% 469.20 181.15 15 Oak - Pine Forests 55.03 21.25 0.1173 11.73% 469.20 181.15 14 Oak - Hickory - Pine Forests 7.01 2.71 0.0150 1.50% 469.20 181.15 16 Oak - Cedar Forests 1.16 0.45 0.0025 0.25% 469.20 181.15 6 Shortleaf Pine - Oak Forests 83.30 32.16 0.1775 17.75% 469.20 181.15 42 Pine - Oak Woodland 9.37 3.62 0.0200 2.00% 469.20 181.15 8 Loblolly Pine - Oak Forest 0.91 0.35 0.0019 0.19% 469.20 181.15 52 Eastern Red Cedar & Oak 0.73 0.28 0.0015 0.15%
175 Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % 469.20 181.15 5 Shortleaf Pine Forest 2.08 0.80 0.0044 0.44% 469.20 181.15 7 Loblolly Pine Forest 4.52 1.75 0.0097 0.97% 469.20 181.15 31 East Central Bottomland 12.47 4.81 0.0266 2.66% 469.20 181.15 91 Tall Grass Prairie 54.96 21.22 0.1171 11.71% 469.20 181.15 112 Midgrass Prairie 0.26 0.10 0.0006 0.06% 469.20 181.15 147 Crop 1.27 0.49 0.0027 0.27% 469.20 181.15 149 Introduced Pasture 130.75 50.48 0.2787 27.87% 469.20 181.15 153 Residential / Industrial 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 469.20 181.15 156 Riverine 0.07 0.03 0.0002 0.02% 469.20 181.15 157 Lake / Reservoir 0.72 0.28 0.0015 0.15% 469.20 181.15 158 Pond 0.22 0.08 0.0004 0.04% 469.20 181.15 160 Loblolly Pine Cultivated 2.69 1.04 0.0057 0.57% 469.20 181.15 162 Tallgrass Cedar Savanna 0.03 0.01 0.0001 0.01% 469.20 181.15 1.0000 100.00%
Jackfork (IPjf) 18.68 7.20 59 Oak Woodland 0.03 0.01 0.0014 0.14% 18.68 7.20 85 Tallgrass Oak Savanna 0.32 0.12 0.0167 1.67% 18.68 7.20 19 Eastern Crosstimbers 1.01 0.39 0.0542 5.42% 18.68 7.20 56 Oak - Pine Woodland 0.34 0.13 0.0181 1.81% 18.68 7.20 15 Oak - Pine Forests 3.97 1.53 0.2125 21.25% 18.68 7.20 14 Oak - Hickory - Pine Forests 1.06 0.41 0.0569 5.69% 18.68 7.20 6 Shortleaf Pine - Oak Forests 8.03 3.10 0.4306 43.06% 18.68 7.20 42 Pine - Oak Woodland 0.36 0.14 0.0194 1.94% 18.68 7.20 8 Loblolly Pine - Oak Forest 0.10 0.04 0.0056 0.56% 18.68 7.20 5 Shortleaf Pine Forest 0.53 0.20 0.0278 2.78% 18.68 7.20 7 Loblolly Pine Forest 0.70 0.27 0.0375 3.75% 18.68 7.20 31 East Central Bottomland 0.05 0.02 0.0028 0.28% 18.68 7.20 91 Tall Grass Prairie 0.54 0.21 0.0292 2.92%
176 Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % 18.68 7.20 147 Crop 0.08 0.03 0.0042 0.42% 18.68 7.20 149 Introduced Pasture 1.36 0.52 0.0722 7.22% 18.68 7.20 157 Lake / Reservoir 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 18.68 7.20 160 Loblolly Pine Cultivated 0.20 0.08 0.0111 1.11% 18.68 7.20 1.0000 100.00%
TenMile/Stanley 0.44 0.17 85 Tallgrass Oak Savanna 0.01 0.01 0.0588 5.88% (Mst) 0.44 0.17 19 Eastern Crosstimbers 0.03 0.01 0.0588 5.88% 0.44 0.17 56 Oak - Pine Woodland 0.03 0.01 0.0588 5.88% 0.44 0.17 14 Oak - Hickory - Pine Forests 0.02 0.01 0.0588 5.88% 0.44 0.17 15 Oak - Pine Forests 0.16 0.06 0.3529 35.29% 0.44 0.17 6 Shortleaf Pine - Oak Forests 0.09 0.03 0.1765 17.65% 0.44 0.17 42 Pine - Oak Woodland 0.04 0.02 0.1176 11.76% 0.44 0.17 5 Shortleaf Pine Forest 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 0.44 0.17 7 Loblolly Pine Forest 0.02 0.01 0.0588 5.88% 0.44 0.17 91 Tall Grass Prairie 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 0.44 0.17 149 Introduced Pasture 0.03 0.01 0.0588 5.88% 0.44 0.17 1.0000 100.00%
Water (W) 66.20 25.54 59 Oak Woodland 0.34 0.13 0.0051 0.51% 66.20 25.54 85 Tallgrass Oak Savanna 2.11 0.81 0.0317 3.17% 66.20 25.54 19 Eastern Crosstimbers 1.27 0.49 0.0192 1.92% 66.20 25.54 56 Oak - Pine Woodland 0.53 0.20 0.0078 0.78% 66.20 25.54 14 Oak - Hickory - Pine Forests 0.20 0.08 0.0031 0.31% 66.20 25.54 15 Oak - Pine Forests 1.31 0.51 0.0200 2.00% 66.20 25.54 6 Shortleaf Pine - Oak Forests 1.13 0.44 0.0172 1.72% 66.20 25.54 42 Pine - Oak Woodland 0.61 0.23 0.0090 0.90%
177 Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % 66.20 25.54 8 Loblolly Pine - Oak Forest 0.14 0.05 0.0020 0.20% 66.20 25.54 5 Shortleaf Pine Forest 0.14 0.05 0.0020 0.20% 66.20 25.54 7 Loblolly Pine Forest 0.11 0.04 0.0016 0.16% 66.20 25.54 31 East Central Bottomland 0.26 0.10 0.0039 0.39% 66.20 25.54 91 Tall Grass Prairie 0.83 0.32 0.0125 1.25% 66.20 25.54 147 Crop 0.48 0.19 0.0074 0.74% 66.20 25.54 149 Introduced Pasture 1.68 0.65 0.0255 2.55% 66.20 25.54 153 Residential / Industrial 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 66.20 25.54 156 Riverine 4.94 1.91 0.0748 7.48% 66.20 25.54 157 Lake / Reservoir 44.76 17.28 0.6766 67.66% 66.20 25.54 158 Pond 3.64 1.40 0.0548 5.48% 66.20 25.54 160 Loblolly Pine Cultivated 0.12 0.05 0.0020 0.20% 66.20 25.54 0 Other 1.59 0.61 0.0239 2.39% 66.20 25.54 1.0000 100.00%
Source: Choctaw County, Oklahoma land cover area in square kilometers and mile is shown for each formation. Relative frequency and percentage is calculated for every formation in the county.
178 Table A17: Coke County, Texas Landcover on Soil Orders
Order(s) Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % Alfi_Ent 112.06 43.27 1 Water 4.89 1.89 0.0437 4.37% Alfi_Ent 112.06 43.27 2 Bare Soil 0.96 0.37 0.0086 0.86% Alfi_Ent 112.06 43.27 4 Cropland 0.19 0.07 0.0016 0.16% Alfi_Ent 112.06 43.27 5 Urban Area 1.34 0.52 0.0120 1.20% Alfi_Ent 112.06 43.27 8 Deciduous Shrubland 47.86 18.48 0.4271 42.71% Alfi_Ent 112.06 43.27 13 Grassland 22.15 8.55 0.1976 19.76% Alfi_Ent 112.06 43.27 20 Temp-Flooded Cold Deciduous Wood 7.79 3.01 0.0696 6.96% Alfi_Ent 112.06 43.27 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 16.09 6.21 0.1435 14.35% Alfi_Ent 112.06 43.27 29 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Woodland 10.79 4.17 0.0964 9.64% 112.06 43.27 1.0000 100.00%
Alfisols 92.82 35.84 1 Water 1.15 0.44 0.0123 1.23% Alfisols 92.82 35.84 2 Bare Soil 0.49 0.19 0.0053 0.53% Alfisols 92.82 35.84 4 Cropland 0.07 0.03 0.0008 0.08% Alfisols 92.82 35.84 8 Deciduous Shrubland 35.17 13.58 0.3789 37.89% Alfisols 92.82 35.84 11 Xeromorphic Evergreen Shrubland 0.02 0.01 0.0003 0.03% Alfisols 92.82 35.84 12 Xeromorphic Subdesert Shrubland 0.06 0.02 0.0006 0.06% Alfisols 92.82 35.84 13 Grassland 22.44 8.66 0.2416 24.16% Alfisols 92.82 35.84 14 Sparse Shrub Layer 0.02 0.01 0.0003 0.03% Alfisols 92.82 35.84 16 Mixed Urban or Built-up Land 0.02 0.01 0.0003 0.03% Alfisols 92.82 35.84 17 Semi-flooded Temperate Grassland 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Alfisols 92.82 35.84 20 Temp-Flooded Cold Deciduous Wood 6.16 2.38 0.0664 6.64% Alfisols 92.82 35.84 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 21.57 8.33 0.2324 23.24% Alfisols 92.82 35.84 29 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Woodland 5.64 2.18 0.0608 6.08% 92.82 35.84 1.0000 100.00%
Ent_Alf 43.23 16.69 1 Water 0.05 0.02 0.0012 0.12%
179 Order(s) Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % Ent_Alf 43.23 16.69 2 Bare Soil 0.11 0.04 0.0024 0.24% Ent_Alf 43.23 16.69 4 Cropland 0.44 0.17 0.0102 1.02% Ent_Alf 43.23 16.69 8 Deciduous Shrubland 21.93 8.47 0.5075 50.75% Ent_Alf 43.23 16.69 13 Grassland 8.41 3.25 0.1947 19.47% Ent_Alf 43.23 16.69 19 Broad-Leaved Evergreen Shrubland 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Ent_Alf 43.23 16.69 20 Temp-Flooded Cold Deciduous Wood 2.52 0.97 0.0581 5.81% Ent_Alf 43.23 16.69 21 Short Sod Temperate Grassland 0.02 0.01 0.0006 0.06% Ent_Alf 43.23 16.69 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 2.53 0.98 0.0587 5.87% Ent_Alf 43.23 16.69 23 Confined Feeding Operations 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Ent_Alf 43.23 16.69 25 Annual Graminoid or Forb Vegetation 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Ent_Alf 43.23 16.69 29 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Woodland 7.19 2.78 0.1666 16.66% 43.23 16.69 1.0000 100.00%
Moll_Alfi 245.83 94.89 1 Water 7.24 2.79 0.0294 2.94% Moll_Alfi 245.83 94.89 2 Bare Soil 0.40 0.15 0.0016 0.16% Moll_Alfi 245.83 94.89 3 Rangeland 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Moll_Alfi 245.83 94.89 4 Cropland 0.61 0.23 0.0024 0.24% Moll_Alfi 245.83 94.89 5 Urban Area 1.71 0.66 0.0070 0.70% Moll_Alfi 245.83 94.89 8 Deciduous Shrubland 74.44 28.74 0.3029 30.29% Moll_Alfi 245.83 94.89 9 Evergreen Shrubland 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Moll_Alfi 245.83 94.89 13 Grassland 65.64 25.34 0.2670 26.70% Moll_Alfi 245.83 94.89 20 Temp-Flooded Cold Deciduous Wood 10.76 4.16 0.0438 4.38% Moll_Alfi 245.83 94.89 21 Short Sod Temperate Grassland 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Moll_Alfi 245.83 94.89 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 37.81 14.60 0.1539 15.39% Moll_Alfi 245.83 94.89 25 Annual Graminoid or Forb Vegetation 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Moll_Alfi 245.83 94.89 29 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Woodland 47.18 18.22 0.1920 19.20% 245.83 94.89 1.0000 100.00%
180 Order(s) Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % Mollisols 1854.45 716.02 1 Water 39.12 15.11 0.0211 2.11% Mollisols 1854.45 716.02 2 Bare Soil 15.78 6.09 0.0085 0.85% Mollisols 1854.45 716.02 4 Cropland 1.38 0.53 0.0007 0.07% Mollisols 1854.45 716.02 5 Urban Area 2.44 0.94 0.0013 0.13% Mollisols 1854.45 716.02 7 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Forest 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Mollisols 1854.45 716.02 8 Deciduous Shrubland 919.66 355.08 0.4959 49.59% Mollisols 1854.45 716.02 9 Evergreen Shrubland 0.05 0.02 0.0000 0.00% Mollisols 1854.45 716.02 10 Drought Deciduous Shrubland 0.06 0.03 0.0000 0.00% Mollisols 1854.45 716.02 11 Xeromorphic Evergreen Shrubland 0.06 0.03 0.0000 0.00% Mollisols 1854.45 716.02 12 Xeromorphic Subdesert Shrubland 0.04 0.02 0.0000 0.00% Mollisols 1854.45 716.02 13 Grassland 320.92 123.91 0.1731 17.31% Mollisols 1854.45 716.02 14 Sparse Shrub Layer 0.08 0.03 0.0000 0.00% Mollisols 1854.45 716.02 15 Industrial and Commercial Complexes 0.02 0.01 0.0000 0.00% Mollisols 1854.45 716.02 16 Mixed Urban or Built-up Land 0.07 0.03 0.0000 0.00% Mollisols 1854.45 716.02 17 Semi-flooded Temperate Grassland 0.05 0.02 0.0000 0.00% Mollisols 1854.45 716.02 19 Broad-Leaved Evergreen Shrubland 0.03 0.01 0.0000 0.00% Mollisols 1854.45 716.02 20 Temp-Flooded Cold Deciduous Wood 189.59 73.20 0.1022 10.22% Mollisols 1854.45 716.02 21 Short Sod Temperate Grassland 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Mollisols 1854.45 716.02 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 292.89 113.09 0.1579 15.79% Mollisols 1854.45 716.02 29 Needle-Leaved Evergreen Woodland 72.19 27.87 0.0389 3.89% 1854.45 716.02 1.0000 100.00%
Source: Coke County, Texas land cover per soil orders are listed with area in square kilometers and miles. Relative frequency and percentage of each land cover type are listed for each soil order in the county.
181 Table A18: Denton County, Texas Landcover on Soil Orders
Order Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % Alfisol 1000.9 389.2 1 Water 21.51 8.31 0.0214 2.14% Alfisol 1000.9 389.2 4 Cropland 268.50 103.67 0.2664 26.64% Alfisol 1000.9 389.2 5 Urban Area 97.61 37.69 0.0968 9.68% Alfisol 1000.9 389.2 7 Needle-Leaf Forest 7.08 2.73 0.0070 0.70% Alfisol 1000.9 389.2 10 Shrubland 56.87 21.96 0.0564 5.64% Alfisol 1000.9 389.2 13 Medium-Tall Grassland 20.96 8.09 0.0208 2.08% Alfisol 1000.9 389.2 20 Shrubland 37.36 14.42 0.0371 3.71% Alfisol 1000.9 389.2 21 Short Grassland 199.69 77.10 0.1981 19.81% Alfisol 1000.9 389.2 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 150.45 58.09 0.1493 14.93% Alfisol 1000.9 389.2 29 Needle-Leaf Woodland 147.88 57.10 0.1467 14.67% 1007.91 389.16 1.0000 100.00%
Inceptisol- 86.1 33.25 1 Water 5.19 2.01 0.0605 6.05% Vertisol Inceptisol- 86.1 33.25 4 Cropland 36.59 14.13 0.4250 42.50% Vertisol Inceptisol- 86.1 33.25 5 Urban Area 9.53 3.68 0.1107 11.07% Vertisol Inceptisol- 86.1 33.25 7 Needle-Leaf Forest 1.01 0.39 0.0117 1.17% Vertisol Inceptisol- 86.1 33.25 10 Shrubland 5.36 2.07 0.0623 6.23% Vertisol Inceptisol- 86.1 33.25 13 Medium-Tall Grassland 0.74 0.29 0.0087 0.87% Vertisol Inceptisol- 86.1 33.25 20 Shrubland 2.29 0.88 0.0265 2.65% Vertisol Inceptisol- 86.1 33.25 21 Short Grassland 9.14 3.53 0.1062 10.62% Vertisol Inceptisol- 86.1 33.25 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 11.95 4.61 0.1386 13.86%
182 Order Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % Vertisol Inceptisol- 86.1 33.25 29 Needle-Leaf Woodland 4.30 1.66 0.0499 4.99% Vertisol 86.10 33.25 1.0000 100.00%
Mollisol-Vertisol 256.11 98.86 1 Water 16.92 6.53 0.0661 6.61% Mollisol-Vertisol 256.11 98.86 4 Cropland 47.43 18.31 0.1852 18.52% Mollisol-Vertisol 256.11 98.86 5 Urban Area 5.70 2.20 0.0223 2.23% Mollisol-Vertisol 256.11 98.86 7 Needle-Leaf Forest 12.63 4.87 0.0493 4.93% Mollisol-Vertisol 256.11 98.86 10 Shrubland 19.11 7.38 0.0747 7.47% Mollisol-Vertisol 256.11 98.86 13 Medium-Tall Grassland 3.56 1.37 0.0139 1.39% Mollisol-Vertisol 256.11 98.86 20 Shrubland 37.69 14.55 0.1472 14.72% Mollisol-Vertisol 256.11 98.86 21 Short Grassland 34.51 13.32 0.1347 13.47% Mollisol-Vertisol 256.11 98.86 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 52.15 20.13 0.2036 20.36% Mollisol-Vertisol 256.11 98.86 29 Needle-Leaf Woodland 26.41 10.20 0.1032 10.32% 256.11 98.86 1.0000 100.00%
Mollisol 59.33 22.91 1 Water 0.45 0.17 0.0074 0.74% Mollisol 59.33 22.91 4 Cropland 16.18 6.25 0.2728 27.28% Mollisol 59.33 22.91 5 Urban Area 0.22 0.08 0.0035 0.35% Mollisol 59.33 22.91 7 Needle-Leaf Forest 0.42 0.16 0.0070 0.70% Mollisol 59.33 22.91 10 Shrubland 5.01 1.94 0.0847 8.47% Mollisol 59.33 22.91 13 Medium-Tall Grassland 0.30 0.12 0.0052 0.52% Mollisol 59.33 22.91 20 Shrubland 1.91 0.74 0.0323 3.23% Mollisol 59.33 22.91 21 Short Grassland 7.10 2.74 0.1196 11.96% Mollisol 59.33 22.91 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 22.17 8.56 0.3736 37.36% Mollisol 59.33 22.91 29 Needle-Leaf Woodland 5.57 2.15 0.0938 9.38% 59.33 22.91 1.0000 100.00%
183 Order Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq %
Vertisol 219.57 84.78 1 Water 3.30 1.28 0.0151 1.51% Vertisol 219.57 84.78 4 Cropland 68.62 26.49 0.3125 31.25% Vertisol 219.57 84.78 5 Urban Area 46.84 18.09 0.2134 21.34% Vertisol 219.57 84.78 7 Needle-Leaf Forest 1.30 0.50 0.0059 0.59% Vertisol 219.57 84.78 10 Shrubland 21.32 8.23 0.0971 9.71% Vertisol 219.57 84.78 13 Medium-Tall Grassland 3.05 1.18 0.0139 1.39% Vertisol 219.57 84.78 20 Shrubland 7.11 2.74 0.0323 3.23% Vertisol 219.57 84.78 21 Short Grassland 22.80 8.80 0.1038 10.38% Vertisol 219.57 84.78 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 32.06 12.38 0.1460 14.60% Vertisol 219.57 84.78 29 Needle-Leaf Woodland 13.17 5.09 0.0600 6.00% 219.57 84.78 1.0000 100.00%
Vertisol-Mollisol 677.82 261.7 1 Water 2.23 0.86 0.0033 0.33% Vertisol-Mollisol 677.82 261.7 4 Cropland 215.05 83.03 0.3173 31.73% Vertisol-Mollisol 677.82 261.7 5 Urban Area 26.02 10.05 0.0384 3.84% Vertisol-Mollisol 677.82 261.7 7 Needle-Leaf Forest 2.23 0.86 0.0033 0.33% Vertisol-Mollisol 677.82 261.7 10 Shrubland 75.90 29.31 0.1120 11.20% Vertisol-Mollisol 677.82 261.7 13 Medium-Tall Grassland 7.28 2.81 0.0107 1.07% Vertisol-Mollisol 677.82 261.7 20 Shrubland 12.97 5.01 0.0191 1.91% Vertisol-Mollisol 677.82 261.7 21 Short Grassland 70.56 27.24 0.1041 10.41% Vertisol-Mollisol 677.82 261.7 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 162.63 62.79 0.2399 23.99% Vertisol-Mollisol 677.82 261.7 29 Needle-Leaf Woodland 102.95 39.75 0.1519 15.19% 677.82 261.71 1.0000 100.00%
Water 163.26 63.03 1 Water 144.07 55.62 0.8824 88.24% Water 163.26 63.03 4 Cropland 4.80 1.85 0.0294 2.94% Water 163.26 63.03 5 Urban Area 0.71 0.27 0.0043 0.43%
184 Order Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 Rel Freq % Water 163.26 63.03 7 Needle-Leaf Forest 1.70 0.66 0.0105 1.05% Water 163.26 63.03 10 Shrubland 0.80 0.31 0.0049 0.49% Water 163.26 63.03 13 Medium-Tall Grassland 0.14 0.05 0.0008 0.08% Water 163.26 63.03 20 Shrubland 1.99 0.77 0.0122 1.22% Water 163.26 63.03 21 Short Grassland 1.33 0.51 0.0081 0.81% Water 163.26 63.03 22 Cold-Deciduous Woodland 6.77 2.62 0.0416 4.16% Water 163.26 63.03 29 Needle-Leaf Woodland 0.95 0.37 0.0059 0.59% 163.26 63.03 1.0000 100.00%
Source: Denton County, Texas land cover per soil orders are listed with area in square kilometers and miles. Relative frequency and percentage of each land cover type are listed for each soil order in the county.
185 Table A19: Choctaw County, Oklahoma Landcover on Soil Orders
Order Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 RelFreq % Alfisol 1083.41 418.32 5 Shortleaf Pine-Forest 0.32 0.12 0.0003 0.03% Alfisol 1083.41 418.32 6 Shortleaf Pine Oak Forest 8.36 3.23 0.0077 0.77% Alfisol 1083.41 418.32 7 Loblolly Pine Forest 0.25 0.10 0.0002 0.02% Alfisol 1083.41 418.32 8 Loblolly Pine-Oak Forest 0.52 0.20 0.0005 0.05% Alfisol 1083.41 418.32 14 Oak-Hickory-Pine Forest 1.81 0.70 0.0017 0.17% Alfisol 1083.41 418.32 15 Oak-Pine Forests 13.47 5.20 0.0124 1.24% Alfisol 1083.41 418.32 16 Oak-Cedar Forests 3.96 1.53 0.0037 0.37% Alfisol 1083.41 418.32 19 Eastern Crosstimbers 159.89 61.73 0.1476 14.76% Alfisol 1083.41 418.32 31 Bottomland Forests 39.19 15.13 0.0362 3.62% Alfisol 1083.41 418.32 42 Pine-Oak Woodland 14.67 5.66 0.0135 1.35% Alfisol 1083.41 418.32 51 Eastern Red Cedar Wood 0.01 0.01 0.0000 0.00% Alfisol 1083.41 418.32 52 Eastern Cedar Woodland 3.62 1.40 0.0033 0.33% Alfisol 1083.41 418.32 56 Oak-Pine Woodland 10.54 4.07 0.0097 0.97% Alfisol 1083.41 418.32 59 Oak Woodland 16.57 6.40 0.0153 1.53% Alfisol 1083.41 418.32 85 Tallgrass Oak Savanna 63.41 24.48 0.0585 5.85% Alfisol 1083.41 418.32 91 Tall Grass Prairie 247.27 95.47 0.2282 22.82% Alfisol 1083.41 418.32 102 Midgrass Oak Savanna 1.95 0.75 0.0018 0.18% Alfisol 1083.41 418.32 112 Midgrass Prairie 0.93 0.36 0.0009 0.09% Alfisol 1083.41 418.32 147 Crop 4.81 1.86 0.0044 0.44% Alfisol 1083.41 418.32 149 Introduced Pasture 484.41 187.03 0.4471 44.71% Alfisol 1083.41 418.32 153 Residential/Industrial 5.77 2.23 0.0053 0.53% Alfisol 1083.41 418.32 156 Riverine 0.35 0.14 0.0003 0.03% Alfisol 1083.41 418.32 157 Lake/Reservoir 0.67 0.26 0.0006 0.06% Alfisol 1083.41 418.32 158 Pond 0.25 0.10 0.0002 0.02% Alfisol 1083.41 418.32 160 Loblolly Pine Cultivated 0.16 0.06 0.0001 0.01% Alfisol 1083.41 418.32 162 Tallgrass Cedar Savanna 0.25 0.10 0.0002 0.02% 1083.41 418.32 1.0000 100.00%
186 Order Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 RelFreq % Alfisol-Entisol 36.38 14.05 5 Shortleaf Pine-Forest 0.36 0.14 0.0100 1.00% Alfisol-Entisol 36.38 14.05 6 Shortleaf Pine Oak Forest 3.67 1.42 0.1011 10.11% Alfisol-Entisol 36.38 14.05 7 Loblolly Pine Forest 0.18 0.07 0.0050 0.50% Alfisol-Entisol 36.38 14.05 8 Loblolly Pine-Oak Forest 0.13 0.05 0.0036 0.36% Alfisol-Entisol 36.38 14.05 14 Oak-Hickory-Pine Forest 1.20 0.46 0.0327 3.27% Alfisol-Entisol 36.38 14.05 15 Oak-Pine Forests 5.94 2.29 0.1630 16.30% Alfisol-Entisol 36.38 14.05 19 Eastern Crosstimbers 4.54 1.75 0.1246 12.46% Alfisol-Entisol 36.38 14.05 31 Bottomland Forests 2.13 0.82 0.0584 5.84% Alfisol-Entisol 36.38 14.05 42 Pine-Oak Woodland 1.60 0.62 0.0441 4.41% Alfisol-Entisol 36.38 14.05 56 Oak-Pine Woodland 2.20 0.85 0.0605 6.05% Alfisol-Entisol 36.38 14.05 59 Oak Woodland 0.80 0.31 0.0221 2.21% Alfisol-Entisol 36.38 14.05 85 Tallgrass Oak Savanna 3.52 1.36 0.0968 9.68% Alfisol-Entisol 36.38 14.05 91 Tall Grass Prairie 2.39 0.92 0.0655 6.55% Alfisol-Entisol 36.38 14.05 147 Crop 0.07 0.03 0.0021 0.21% Alfisol-Entisol 36.38 14.05 149 Introduced Pasture 3.22 1.24 0.0883 8.83% Alfisol-Entisol 36.38 14.05 156 Riverine 0.30 0.12 0.0085 0.85% Alfisol-Entisol 36.38 14.05 157 Lake/Reservoir 2.81 1.09 0.0776 7.76% Alfisol-Entisol 36.38 14.05 158 Pond 1.24 0.48 0.0342 3.42% Alfisol-Entisol 36.38 14.05 160 Loblolly Pine Cultivated 0.08 0.03 0.0021 0.21% 36.38 14.05 1.0000 100.00%
Alfisol-Mollisol 2.40 0.93 6 Shortleaf Pine Oak Forest 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Alfisol-Mollisol 2.40 0.93 8 Loblolly Pine-Oak Forest 0.02 0.01 0.0108 1.08% Alfisol-Mollisol 2.40 0.93 19 Eastern Crosstimbers 0.36 0.14 0.1505 15.05% Alfisol-Mollisol 2.40 0.93 31 Bottomland Forests 0.14 0.06 0.0645 6.45% Alfisol-Mollisol 2.40 0.93 42 Pine-Oak Woodland 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Alfisol-Mollisol 2.40 0.93 56 Oak-Pine Woodland 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Alfisol-Mollisol 2.40 0.93 59 Oak Woodland 0.85 0.33 0.3548 35.48%
187 Order Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 RelFreq % Alfisol-Mollisol 2.40 0.93 85 Tallgrass Oak Savanna 0.28 0.11 0.1183 11.83% Alfisol-Mollisol 2.40 0.93 91 Tall Grass Prairie 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Alfisol-Mollisol 2.40 0.93 147 Crop 0.23 0.09 0.0968 9.68% Alfisol-Mollisol 2.40 0.93 149 Introduced Pasture 0.49 0.19 0.2043 20.43% 2.40 0.93 1.0000 100.00%
Entisol 110.64 42.72 0 Not Classified 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Entisol 110.64 42.72 5 Shortleaf Pine-Forest 0.05 0.02 0.0005 0.05% Entisol 110.64 42.72 6 Shortleaf Pine Oak Forest 0.97 0.37 0.0087 0.87% Entisol 110.64 42.72 7 Loblolly Pine Forest 0.05 0.02 0.0005 0.05% Entisol 110.64 42.72 8 Loblolly Pine-Oak Forest 0.36 0.14 0.0033 0.33% Entisol 110.64 42.72 14 Oak-Hickory-Pine Forest 0.19 0.07 0.0016 0.16% Entisol 110.64 42.72 15 Oak-Pine Forests 1.73 0.67 0.0157 1.57% Entisol 110.64 42.72 16 Oak-Cedar Forests 0.58 0.22 0.0051 0.51% Entisol 110.64 42.72 19 Eastern Crosstimbers 9.03 3.49 0.0817 8.17% Entisol 110.64 42.72 31 Bottomland Forests 12.04 4.65 0.1088 10.88% Entisol 110.64 42.72 42 Pine-Oak Woodland 1.90 0.73 0.0171 1.71% Entisol 110.64 42.72 51 Eastern Red Cedar Wood 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Entisol 110.64 42.72 52 Eastern Cedar Woodland 0.58 0.23 0.0054 0.54% Entisol 110.64 42.72 56 Oak-Pine Woodland 0.74 0.29 0.0068 0.68% Entisol 110.64 42.72 59 Oak Woodland 1.51 0.58 0.0136 1.36% Entisol 110.64 42.72 85 Tallgrass Oak Savanna 8.23 3.18 0.0744 7.44% Entisol 110.64 42.72 91 Tall Grass Prairie 20.00 7.72 0.1807 18.07% Entisol 110.64 42.72 102 Midgrass Oak Savanna 0.24 0.09 0.0021 0.21% Entisol 110.64 42.72 112 Midgrass Prairie 0.10 0.04 0.0009 0.09% Entisol 110.64 42.72 147 Crop 4.66 1.80 0.0421 4.21% Entisol 110.64 42.72 149 Introduced Pasture 43.92 16.96 0.3970 39.70% Entisol 110.64 42.72 156 Riverine 2.22 0.86 0.0201 2.01%
188 Order Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 RelFreq % Entisol 110.64 42.72 157 Lake/Reservoir 0.48 0.19 0.0044 0.44% Entisol 110.64 42.72 158 Pond 0.22 0.08 0.0019 0.19% Entisol 110.64 42.72 160 Loblolly Pine Cultivated 0.82 0.32 0.0075 0.75% Entisol 110.64 42.72 162 Tallgrass Cedar Savanna 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% 110.64 42.72 1.0000 100.00%
Inceptisol 10.08 3.88 5 Shortleaf Pine-Forest 0.29 0.11 0.0284 2.84% Inceptisol 10.08 3.88 6 Shortleaf Pine Oak Forest 5.91 2.28 0.5876 58.76% Inceptisol 10.08 3.88 7 Loblolly Pine Forest 0.56 0.22 0.0567 5.67% Inceptisol 10.08 3.88 8 Loblolly Pine-Oak Forest 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Inceptisol 10.08 3.88 14 Oak-Hickory-Pine Forest 0.53 0.20 0.0515 5.15% Inceptisol 10.08 3.88 15 Oak-Pine Forests 1.75 0.68 0.1753 17.53% Inceptisol 10.08 3.88 19 Eastern Crosstimbers 0.06 0.02 0.0052 0.52% Inceptisol 10.08 3.88 42 Pine-Oak Woodland 0.24 0.09 0.0232 2.32% Inceptisol 10.08 3.88 56 Oak-Pine Woodland 0.09 0.04 0.0103 1.03% Inceptisol 10.08 3.88 59 Oak Woodland 0.01 0.01 0.0026 0.26% Inceptisol 10.08 3.88 85 Tallgrass Oak Savanna 0.16 0.06 0.0155 1.55% Inceptisol 10.08 3.88 91 Tall Grass Prairie 0.04 0.01 0.0026 0.26% Inceptisol 10.08 3.88 149 Introduced Pasture 0.09 0.03 0.0077 0.77% Inceptisol 10.08 3.88 160 Loblolly Pine Cultivated 0.34 0.13 0.0335 3.35% 10.08 3.88 1.0000 100.00%
Mollisol 68.78 26.55 5 Shortleaf Pine-Forest 0.06 0.02 0.0008 0.08% Mollisol 68.78 26.55 6 Shortleaf Pine Oak Forest 0.78 0.30 0.0113 1.13% Mollisol 68.78 26.55 7 Loblolly Pine Forest 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Mollisol 68.78 26.55 8 Loblolly Pine-Oak Forest 0.08 0.03 0.0011 0.11% Mollisol 68.78 26.55 14 Oak-Hickory-Pine Forest 0.19 0.07 0.0026 0.26% Mollisol 68.78 26.55 15 Oak-Pine Forests 1.05 0.40 0.0151 1.51%
189 Order Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 RelFreq % Mollisol 68.78 26.55 19 Eastern Crosstimbers 2.76 1.07 0.0403 4.03% Mollisol 68.78 26.55 31 Bottomland Forests 3.99 1.54 0.0580 5.80% Mollisol 68.78 26.55 42 Pine-Oak Woodland 2.22 0.86 0.0324 3.24% Mollisol 68.78 26.55 56 Oak-Pine Woodland 0.59 0.23 0.0087 0.87% Mollisol 68.78 26.55 59 Oak Woodland 0.36 0.14 0.0053 0.53% Mollisol 68.78 26.55 85 Tallgrass Oak Savanna 6.81 2.63 0.0991 9.91% Mollisol 68.78 26.55 91 Tall Grass Prairie 15.75 6.08 0.2290 22.90% Mollisol 68.78 26.55 147 Crop 2.65 1.02 0.0384 3.84% Mollisol 68.78 26.55 149 Introduced Pasture 30.73 11.87 0.4471 44.71% Mollisol 68.78 26.55 156 Riverine 0.28 0.11 0.0041 0.41% Mollisol 68.78 26.55 157 Lake/Reservoir 0.02 0.01 0.0004 0.04% Mollisol 68.78 26.55 158 Pond 0.11 0.04 0.0015 0.15% Mollisol 68.78 26.55 160 Loblolly Pine Cultivated 0.34 0.13 0.0049 0.49% 68.78 26.55 1.0000 100.00%
Ultisol 308.05 118.93 5 Shortleaf Pine-Forest 2.37 0.91 0.0077 0.77% Ultisol 308.05 118.93 6 Shortleaf Pine Oak Forest 88.08 34.01 0.2860 28.60% Ultisol 308.05 118.93 7 Loblolly Pine Forest 4.83 1.87 0.0157 1.57% Ultisol 308.05 118.93 8 Loblolly Pine-Oak Forest 0.88 0.34 0.0029 0.29% Ultisol 308.05 118.93 14 Oak-Hickory-Pine Forest 7.85 3.03 0.0255 2.55% Ultisol 308.05 118.93 15 Oak-Pine Forests 58.10 22.43 0.1886 18.86% Ultisol 308.05 118.93 19 Eastern Crosstimbers 24.58 9.49 0.0798 7.98% Ultisol 308.05 118.93 31 Bottomland Forests 5.37 2.07 0.0174 1.74% Ultisol 308.05 118.93 42 Pine-Oak Woodland 6.54 2.52 0.0212 2.12% Ultisol 308.05 118.93 56 Oak-Pine Woodland 8.27 3.19 0.0268 2.68% Ultisol 308.05 118.93 59 Oak Woodland 0.81 0.31 0.0026 0.26% Ultisol 308.05 118.93 85 Tallgrass Oak Savanna 9.51 3.67 0.0309 3.09% Ultisol 308.05 118.93 91 Tall Grass Prairie 22.44 8.66 0.0728 7.28%
190 Order Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 RelFreq % Ultisol 308.05 118.93 147 Crop 0.70 0.27 0.0023 0.23% Ultisol 308.05 118.93 149 Introduced Pasture 62.08 23.97 0.2015 20.15% Ultisol 308.05 118.93 153 Residential/Industrial 0.02 0.01 0.0001 0.01% Ultisol 308.05 118.93 156 Riverine 0.07 0.03 0.0003 0.03% Ultisol 308.05 118.93 157 Lake/Reservoir 2.32 0.90 0.0076 0.76% Ultisol 308.05 118.93 158 Pond 0.57 0.22 0.0018 0.18% Ultisol 308.05 118.93 160 Loblolly Pine Cultivated 2.66 1.03 0.0087 0.87% 308.05 118.93 1.0000 100.00%
Alfisol-Vert-Moll 63.79 24.64 5 Shortleaf Pine-Forest 0.13 0.05 0.0020 0.20% Alfisol-Vert-Moll 63.79 24.64 6 Shortleaf Pine Oak Forest 1.68 0.65 0.0264 2.64% Alfisol-Vert-Moll 63.79 24.64 7 Loblolly Pine Forest 0.03 0.01 0.0004 0.04% Alfisol-Vert-Moll 63.79 24.64 8 Loblolly Pine-Oak Forest 0.32 0.12 0.0049 0.49% Alfisol-Vert-Moll 63.79 24.64 14 Oak-Hickory-Pine Forest 0.54 0.21 0.0085 0.85% Alfisol-Vert-Moll 63.79 24.64 15 Oak-Pine Forests 4.23 1.63 0.0662 6.62% Alfisol-Vert-Moll 63.79 24.64 19 Eastern Crosstimbers 15.07 5.82 0.2362 23.62% Alfisol-Vert-Moll 63.79 24.64 31 Bottomland Forests 6.83 2.64 0.1071 10.71% Alfisol-Vert-Moll 63.79 24.64 42 Pine-Oak Woodland 2.11 0.82 0.0333 3.33% Alfisol-Vert-Moll 63.79 24.64 56 Oak-Pine Woodland 1.11 0.43 0.0175 1.75% Alfisol-Vert-Moll 63.79 24.64 59 Oak Woodland 1.05 0.40 0.0162 1.62% Alfisol-Vert-Moll 63.79 24.64 85 Tallgrass Oak Savanna 8.46 3.27 0.1327 13.27% Alfisol-Vert-Moll 63.79 24.64 91 Tall Grass Prairie 9.07 3.50 0.1420 14.20% Alfisol-Vert-Moll 63.79 24.64 147 Crop 0.31 0.12 0.0049 0.49% Alfisol-Vert-Moll 63.79 24.64 149 Introduced Pasture 12.53 4.84 0.1964 19.64% Alfisol-Vert-Moll 63.79 24.64 153 Residential/Industrial 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Alfisol-Vert-Moll 63.79 24.64 156 Riverine 0.23 0.09 0.0037 0.37% Alfisol-Vert-Moll 63.79 24.64 157 Lake/Reservoir 0.05 0.02 0.0008 0.08% Alfisol-Vert-Moll 63.79 24.64 160 Loblolly Pine Cultivated 0.04 0.02 0.0008 0.08%
191 Order Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 RelFreq % 63.79 24.64 1.0000 100.00%
Vertisols 306.72 118.43 5 Shortleaf Pine-Forest 0.23 0.09 0.0008 0.08% Vertisols 306.72 118.43 6 Shortleaf Pine Oak Forest 11.17 4.31 0.0364 3.64% Vertisols 306.72 118.43 7 Loblolly Pine Forest 1.38 0.53 0.0045 0.45% Vertisols 306.72 118.43 8 Loblolly Pine-Oak Forest 0.01 0.01 0.0001 0.01% Vertisols 306.72 118.43 14 Oak-Hickory-Pine Forest 1.70 0.66 0.0056 0.56% Vertisols 306.72 118.43 15 Oak-Pine Forests 27.61 10.66 0.0900 9.00% Vertisols 306.72 118.43 16 Oak-Cedar Forests 1.71 0.66 0.0056 0.56% Vertisols 306.72 118.43 19 Eastern Crosstimbers 33.82 13.06 0.1103 11.03% Vertisols 306.72 118.43 31 Bottomland Forests 3.47 1.34 0.0113 1.13% Vertisols 306.72 118.43 42 Pine-Oak Woodland 20.08 7.75 0.0654 6.54% Vertisols 306.72 118.43 51 Eastern Red Cedar Wood 0.03 0.01 0.0001 0.01% Vertisols 306.72 118.43 52 Eastern Cedar Woodland 1.39 0.54 0.0046 0.46% Vertisols 306.72 118.43 56 Oak-Pine Woodland 7.74 2.99 0.0252 2.52% Vertisols 306.72 118.43 59 Oak Woodland 4.47 1.73 0.0146 1.46% Vertisols 306.72 118.43 85 Tallgrass Oak Savanna 25.96 10.02 0.0846 8.46% Vertisols 306.72 118.43 91 Tall Grass Prairie 61.93 23.91 0.2019 20.19% Vertisols 306.72 118.43 102 Midgrass Oak Savanna 1.73 0.67 0.0057 0.57% Vertisols 306.72 118.43 112 Midgrass Prairie 0.64 0.25 0.0021 0.21% Vertisols 306.72 118.43 147 Crop 0.67 0.26 0.0022 0.22% Vertisols 306.72 118.43 149 Introduced Pasture 97.53 37.65 0.3179 31.79% Vertisols 306.72 118.43 153 Residential/Industrial 0.38 0.15 0.0013 0.13% Vertisols 306.72 118.43 156 Riverine 0.15 0.06 0.0005 0.05% Vertisols 306.72 118.43 157 Lake/Reservoir 2.05 0.79 0.0067 0.67% Vertisols 306.72 118.43 158 Pond 0.52 0.20 0.0017 0.17% Vertisols 306.72 118.43 160 Loblolly Pine Cultivated 0.16 0.06 0.0005 0.05% Vertisols 306.72 118.43 162 Tallgrass Cedar Savanna 0.19 0.07 0.0006 0.06%
192 Order Km2 Mi2 Code Landcover Km2 Mi2 RelFreq % 306.72 118.43 1.0000 100.00%
Water 73.08 28.20 0 Not Classified 0.75 0.29 0.0103 1.03% Water 73.08 28.20 5 Shortleaf Pine-Forest 0.12 0.05 0.0018 0.18% Water 73.08 28.20 6 Shortleaf Pine Oak Forest 1.04 0.40 0.0142 1.42% Water 73.08 28.20 7 Loblolly Pine Forest 0.05 0.02 0.0007 0.07% Water 73.08 28.20 8 Loblolly Pine-Oak Forest 0.10 0.04 0.0014 0.14% Water 73.08 28.20 14 Oak-Hickory-Pine Forest 0.26 0.10 0.0035 0.35% Water 73.08 28.20 15 Oak-Pine Forests 1.12 0.43 0.0152 1.52% Water 73.08 28.20 19 Eastern Crosstimbers 1.60 0.62 0.0220 2.20% Water 73.08 28.20 31 Bottomland Forests 0.57 0.22 0.0078 0.78% Water 73.08 28.20 42 Pine-Oak Woodland 0.53 0.20 0.0071 0.71% Water 73.08 28.20 56 Oak-Pine Woodland 0.44 0.17 0.0060 0.60% Water 73.08 28.20 59 Oak Woodland 0.47 0.18 0.0064 0.64% Water 73.08 28.20 85 Tallgrass Oak Savanna 3.12 1.20 0.0426 4.26% Water 73.08 28.20 91 Tall Grass Prairie 0.97 0.37 0.0131 1.31% Water 73.08 28.20 147 Crop 1.66 0.64 0.0227 2.27% Water 73.08 28.20 149 Introduced Pasture 4.72 1.82 0.0645 6.45% Water 73.08 28.20 153 Residential/Industrial 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.00% Water 73.08 28.20 156 Riverine 10.28 3.97 0.1408 14.08% Water 73.08 28.20 157 Lake/Reservoir 42.22 16.30 0.5780 57.80% Water 73.08 28.20 158 Pond 2.92 1.13 0.0401 4.01% Water 73.08 28.20 160 Loblolly Pine Cultivated 0.13 0.05 0.0018 0.18% 73.08 28.20 1.0000 100.00%
Source: Choctaw County, Oklahoma land cover per soil orders are listed with area in square kilometers and miles. Relative frequency and percentage of each land cover type are listed for each soil order in the county.
193 REFERENCES
Adams, Jonathan. North America during the Last 150.000 Years. Environmental Sciences division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak ridge, TN 37831, USA. Retrieved 15 May 2007 from http://esd.ornl.gov/gov/projects/qen/nercNORTHAMERICA.html.
Bailey, R. G. 1976. Ecoregions of the United States (map). Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 1:7,500,000.
Bailey, Robert, G. 1983. Delineation of Ecosystem Regions, Environmental Management. Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 365-373.
Bailey, Robert, G. 1985A. Ecological Regionalization in Canada and the United States, Geoform. Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 265-275.
Bailey, Robert, G. 1985B. The Factor of Scale in Ecosystem Mapping, Environmental Management. Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 271-276.
Bailey, Robert, G. and Howard C. Hogg. 1986. A World Ecoregions Map for Resource Reporting, Environmental conservation. Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 195-202.
Barnes, Virgil E. 1974. Geologic Atlas of Texas, Big Springs Sheet, Vincent Charles Perine, Jr., Memorial Edition, Bureau of Economic Geology. The University of Texas, Austin, Texas. W. L. Fisher, Director.
Barnes, Virgil E. 1974-1975. Geologic Atlas of Texas, San Angelo Sheet, Helen Jeanne Plummer Memorial Edition. Bureau of Economic Geology. The University of Texas, Austin, Texas. W. L. Fisher, Director.
Barnhill, Lloyd, J. 1974. Soil Survey of Coke County, Texas, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Texas Agriculture Experiment Station, Issued October.
Beede, J.W., and W. P. Bentley. 1918. The Geology of Coke County, University of Texas Bulletin, Bureau of Economic Geology. No. 1850: September 5, J.A. Udden, Director, pp. 1-29.
Berthold-Bond, Daniel. 1999. The Ethics of “Place”: Reflections on Bioreginalism, Environmental Ethics, Vol. 22, p. 7.
Blair, W. F. 1950. The Biotic Provinces of Texas, Texas Journal of Science. Vol. 2, pp. 93-117).
Bruner, W. E. 1931. The Vegetation of Oklahoma, Ecological Monographs. Vol. 1, pp. 99-188.
Compton, Robert R. 1962. Manual of Field Geology. New York, John Wiley.
194 Crow, Peter. 2005. The Influence of Soils and Species on Tree Root Depth. Forestry Commission, informaton note. www.forestresearch.gov.uk. Retrieved May27, 2007.
Cuyler, Robert, H. 1931. Vegetation as an Indicator of Geologic Formation, Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Vol: 15, pp. 67-78.
Duck, L.G., and J.B. Fletcher. 1943. A game type map of Oklahoma. A survey of the game and furbearing animals of Oklahoma. Oklahoma City (OK): Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation.
Du Puy, D. J. and Moat, J.F. 1998. Vegetation Mapping and Classification in Madagascar (using GIS): Implications and Recommendations for the Conservation of Biodiversity. In: C.R. Huxley, J.M. Lock and D. F. Cutler (editors). Chorology Taxonomy and Ecology of the African and Madagascan Flora. Royal Botanic Gardens, KEW.
Dyksterhuis E. J. 1948. The Vegetation of the Western Cross Timbers, Ecological Monographs. Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 325-376.
Estepp, John D. 2004. Digital 15-minute Digital GAT (Geologic Atlas of Texas) Quads for the State of Texas. NW and SW. Bureau of Economic Geology, Scott W. Tinker-Director.
Fenneman, Nevin, M. 1916 Preliminary Map of the Physiographic Divisions of the United States, Annals of the association of American Geographers. Vol. VI, Plate 1.
Fenneman, Nevin, M. 1922. Physiographic Provinces and Sections in Western Oklahoma and Adjacent Parts of Texas, Annals of the Association of American Geographers. Volume VI, p. 24.
Fenneman, Nevin, M. 1938. Physiography of Eastern United States. McGraw-Hill. New York.
Fisher, William L., and Mark S. Gregory. 2001. The Oklahoma Gap Analysis Project, Final Report. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma.
Ford, Alan and Ed Pauls. 1980. Soil Survey of Denton County, Texas, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Texas Agriculture Experiment Station, Issued January.
Geography Network. Precipitation and Temperature Data. Retrieved December 28, 2004 from http://geographynetwork.com/dallas-precipitation
Gould, Chas. N. 1910. Part II Brief Chapters on Oklahoma’s Mineral Resources. No.6, Oklahoma Geological Survey, Norman, pp. 35-95.
195 Griffith, Glenn E., Omernik, James M., Wilton, Thomas F., and Pierson, Suzanne M. 1994. Ecoregions and Subregions of Iowa: A Framework for Water Quality Assessment and Management, Journal of the Iowa Academy of Science 101(1): pp. 5-13.
Hall S.A. & Valastro S. 1995. Grassland Vegetation in the Southern Great Plains During the Last Glacial Maximum. Quaternary research v.44, pp237-245.
Hayward, O. T., and Joe C. Yelderman. 1991. A field guide to The Blackland Prairie of Texas, From Frontier to Heartland in One Long Century. Department of Geology, Baylor University, Waco, Texas, pp. 17-25.
Hill, R.T. 1901. Geography and Geology of the Black and Grand Prairies. Texas 21st Annual Report of the U. S. Geological Survey, Part VII-Texas, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Huffman, George H. et al. 1975. Geology and Mineral Resources of Choctaw County, Oklahoma, Oklahoma Geological Survey. Bulletin 120, University of Oklahoma, Norman, pp. 1-8, and Geologic map of Choctaw County, pocket map.
Kennedy, William Pringle. 1841. Texas: The Rise, Progress, and Prospects of the Republic of Texas. Vol. 1. Publisher R. Hastings, London, England, pp. 13, 99, & 101-2.
May, Cathleen L. 1998. Geoecology: Emerging Direction or Buzz Word? GSA Today, July, p. 12.
McBride, James B. 1933. The Vegetation and Habitat Factors of the Carrizo Sands, Ecological Monographs. Vol. 3, pp. 247-297.
McGowen, J. H., et al. 1991. Geologic Atlas of Texas, Sherman Sheet, Bureau of Economic Geology. The University of Texas, Austin, Texas. W. L. Fisher, Director.
Miser, H.D. 1954. Geological Map of Oklahoma. Oklahoma Geological Survey.
National Climate Data Center, Retrieved December 30, 2004 from http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/stationlocator.html
Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregion of the Conterminous United States, Map (Scale 1:7,500,000). Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 77(1): pp. 118-125.
Omernik, J. M. 1993. Questionnaire to Identify Potential Ecological Risk Assessment Case Studies. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, 200 S. W. 35th Street, Corvallis, Oregon 97333.
196 Omernick, James M., and Robert G. Bailey. 1997. Distinguishing Between Watersheds and Ecoregions, Journal of the American Water Resources Association. Vol. 33, No5, 935-949.
Rhodes, Lorna K. 1980. Correlation between Vegetation and Geologic Formations in Oklahoma, Oklahoma Geology Notes. Vol. 40, (2), Oklahoma Geological Survey, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK., pp. 47-62.
Sellards, E. H., W.S. Adkins & F. B. Plummer. 1932. The Geology of Texas. Vol. 1, Stratigraphy, Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas, Austin, Eight Printing 1981, p. 279.
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil Taxonomy. A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Handbook 436.
Stahle, et al, 2003, Ancient Cross Timbers Consortium. Retrieved 15 May 2007 from http://www.uark.edu/misc/xtimber/index.html
Stephens, A. Ray, and William M. Holmes. 1989. Historical Atlas of Texas. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman and London, p. 6.
Stransky, John J. 1990. Post Oak Quercus Stellata Wangenh. Post Oak, Silvics of North America. Forest Service, United States Department o Agriculture, Washington DC.
Swafford, Billy G., and Robert C. Reasoner. 1979. Soil Survey of Choctaw County, Oklahoma. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Oklahoma Agriculture Experiment Station.
TCEQ. 2004. Geologic Atlas (GAT) 15-Minute GAT Quads SW and NW. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality(TCEQ) Surface Casing Team. Austin, Texas.
Ter Braak, C.J.F. & Smilauer, P. 2002. CANACO Reference manual and CanoDraw for Windows User’s Guide: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4.5), Microcomputer (Ithaca, NY, USA), 500pp.
Texas Almanac. 1996-1997. Ramos, Mary G., Editor. Distributed by Andrews and McMeel, Universal Press syndicate Company, Kansas City, Missouri, pp. 112- 118, 156, & 171.
Tharp, Benjamin. C. 1926. Structure of Texas Vegetation East of the 98th Meridian. The University of Texas Bulletin, No. 2606, p. 100.
Therrell, Matthew, & David Stahle. 1998, A predictive model to locate ancient forests in the Cross Timbers of Osage County, Oklahoma, Journal of Biogeography, 25 (5), 847-854.
197 Winton, W. M. 1925. The Geology of Denton County. University of Texas Bulletin, Bureau of Economic Geology, No. 2455: Nov. 22, J. A. Udden, Director. p. 8.
Wittwer, Robert F., et al., 2007, Growing Oak Trees from Seed, Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Oklahoma State University.
Zhang, Jingxiong, and Roger P. Kirby. 1999. Alternative Criteria for Defining Fuzzy Boundaries Based on Fussy Classification of Aerial Photographs and Satellite Images, Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, Vol. 65, No. 12, December, pp. 1379-1387.
Zim, Herbert, S. and Alexander C. Martin. 1956. A Golden Guide, Trees. Trees, A Guide To Familiar American Trees. Golden Press, New York, Western Publishing Company, Racine, Wisconsin, pp. 82-83.
198