Classifying ecological types and evaluating site degradation

Journal of Range Management

Volumn 50, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 315-321

  Weixelman, Dave A ^a   Zamudio, Desiderio C ^a   Zamudio, Karen A ^a   Tausch, Robin J ^b  

^a Humboldt Toiyabe National Forest   (United States)

^b US Forest Service   (United States)

Author keywords

canonical correspondence analysis; discriminant analysis; infiltration; range condition; range site; riparian

Indexed keywords

LAND-COVER TYPE; RANGELAND DEGRADATION; SITE DEGRADATION; VEGETATION TYPE;

USA, NEVADA;

EID: 0030617670     PISSN: 0022409X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/4003735     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Barnes, B.V., K.S. Pregitzer, T.A. Spies, and V.H. Spooner. 1982. Ecological forest site classification. J. Forest. 80:493-498.
2. Beeskow, A.M., N.D. Elissalde, and C.M. Rastagno. 1995. Ecosystem changes associated with grazing intensity on the Punta Ninfar rangelands of Patagonia, Argentina. J. Range Manage. 48:517-522.
3. Blackburn, W.H. 1975. Factors effecting infiltration and sediment production of semiarid rangelands in Nevada. Water Resour. Res. 11:929-937.
4. Bosch, O.J.H. and K. Kellner. 1991. The use of degradation gradient for the ecological interpretation of condition assessments in the western grasslands biome of southern Africa. J. Arid Environ. 21:21-29.
5. Bowles, J.E. 1979. Physical and geotechnical properties of soils. McGraw-Hill Book Co. N.Y. 459 pp.
6. Branson, F.A., G.F. Gifford, K.G. Renard, and R.F. Hadley. 1981. Rangeland hydrology. Kendall/Hunt Pub. Co. 333 pp.
7. Cook, C.W. and J. Stubbendieck. 1986. Range research: basic problems and techniques. Soc. Range Manage. Denver, Colo.
8. Das, B.J. 1994. Principles of geotechnical engineering. PWS Publishing Co. Boston, Mass. 665 pp.
9. Daubenmire, R. 1976. The use of vegetation in assessing the productivity of forest lands. Bot. Rev. 42:115-143.
10. Dyksterhuis, E.J. 1949. Condition and management of rangeland based on quantitative ecology. J. Range Manage. 2:104-115.
11. Dyksterhuis, E.J. 1958. Ecological principles in range evaluation. Bot. Rev. 24:253-272.
12. Edwards, E.M., M.J. Shipitalo, S.J. Traina, C.A. Edwards, and L.B. Owens. 1992. Role of Lumbricus terrestris (L.) burrows on quality of infiltrating water. Soil Biol. Biochem. 24:1555-1561.
13. Fincher, J. and M. Smith. 1993. A discriminant function approach to ecological site classification in Northern New England. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. Submitted. Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Durham, N.H.
14. Freeze, A.L. and J.A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall Inc. 588 pp.
15. Greig-Smith, P. 1983. Quantitative plant ecology. Univ. of California Press. Berkeley, Calif. 359 pp.
16. Hazen, A. 1911. Discussion: Dams on sand foundations. Trans. ASCE. 73:199.
17. Hickman, J.C. (ed.) 1993. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. Univ. Calif. Press. Berkeley, Calif.
18. Hill, M.O. 1979. TWINSPAN: A FORTRAN program for arranging multivariate data in an ordered two-way table by classification of the individuals and attributes. Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y.
19. Jenny, H. 1980. The soil resource, origin and behavior (Ecological studies, v. 37). Springer-Verlag. N.Y. 368 pp.
20. Jensen, M.E., W. Hann, and R.E. Keane. 1993. ECODATA - a multi-resource database and analysis system for ecosystem description and evaluation. In: Jensen, M.E., Bourgeron, P.S., eds. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment - Vol. II: Ecosystem management: Principles and applications. Portland, Ore.: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
21. Jimerson, T.M. 1990. A seral stage and successional pathway model for the tanoak-canyon live oak/evergreen huckleberry ecological type on the Gasquet ranger district, Six Rivers National Forest. Ph.D. Diss. Univ. of Calif., Berkeley. Berkeley, Calif. 193 pp.
22. Jongman, R.H.G., C.J.F. ter Braak, and O.F.R. van Tongeren. 1987. Data analysis in community and landscape ecology. Pudoc Wageningen. Netherlands.
23. Joyce, L.A. 1993. The life cycle of the range condition concept. J. Range Manage. 46:132-138.
24. Laycock, W.A. 1991. Stable states and thresholds of range condition on North American rangelands: A Viewpoint. J. Range Manage. 44:427-433.
25. Ludwig, J.A. and J.F. Reynolds. 1988. Statistical ecology. John Wiley and Sons, N.Y.
26. Lull, H.W. 1959. Soil compaction on forest and range lands. USDA -Forest Service Misc. Pub. No. 763. Washington, D.C.
27. Palmer, M.W. 1993. Putting things in even better order: the advantages of canonical correspondence analysis. Ecol. 74:2215-2230.
28. Pamo, E.T., R.D. Pieper, and R.F. Beck. 1991. Range condition analysis: Comparison of 2 methods in southern New Mexico desert grasslands. J. Range Manage. 44:374-368.
29. Pfister, R.D. and S.F. Arno. 1980. Classifying forest habitat types based on potential climax condition. Forest Sci. 26:52-70.
30. Pregitzer, K.S. and B.V. Barnes. 1982. The use of ground flora to indicate edaphic factors in upland ecosystems of the McCormick Experimental Forest., Upper Michigan. Can. J. Forest Res. 12:661-672.
31. Pullen, A.J. 1990. The quasilinear approximation for unsaturated porous media flow. Water Resour. Res. 26:1219-1234.
32. Reynolds, W.D. and D.E. Elrick. 1990. Ponded infiltration from a single ring: I. Analysis of steady flow. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 54:1233-1241.
33. Sakamoto, S.M. 1973. Climatological summary No. 20-26. Agricultral Experiment Station. Univ. Nevada, Reno, Nev.
34. Smith, M. 1993. Habitat type classification and analysis of upland hardwood forest communities on the Middlebury and Rochester ranger districts, Green Mountain National Forest, Vermont. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Wisconsin-Madison. Madison, Wis.
35. Smith, M. 1995. Community and edaphic analysis of upland northern hardwood communities, central Vermont, USA. Forest Ecol. and Manage. 72:235-249.
36. Soil Survey Staff. 1975. Soil taxonomy. USDA-SCS Agr. Handb. No. 436.
37. Soil Survey Staff. 1992. Keys to soil taxonomy. Soil management support services technical monograph No. 19, fifth edition. Pocohantas Press, Inc. Blacksburg, Va.
38. Spaeth, K.E., F.B. Pierson, M.A. Weltz, and J.B. Awang. 1996. Gradient analysis of infiltration and environmental variables as related to rangeland vegetation. Transactions of the ASAE. 39:67-77.
39. Tausch, R.J., P.E. Wigand, and J.W. Burkhardt. 1993. Viewpoint: plant community thresholds, multiple steady states, and multiple successional pathways: legacy of the quaternary? J. Range Manage. 46:439-447.
40. Tausch, R.J., D.A. Charlet, D.A. Weixelman, and D.C. Zamudio. 1995. Patterns of ordination and classification sensitivity to changes in input data order. Vegetatio 6:897-902.
41. ter Braak, C.J.F. 1987a. CANOCO - A FORTRAN program for canonical community analysis by [partial] [detrended] [canonical] correspondence analysis, principal component analysis, and redundancy analysis (version 2.1). Agr. Math. Group, Wageningen, Netherlands.
42. ter Braak, C.J.F. 1987b. Unimodal models to relate species to environment. Agr. Math, group, Wageningen, Netherlands.
43. Terzaghi, K. 1943. Theoretical soil mechanics. Wiley, N.Y.
44. Tongway, D. and N. Hindley. 1995. Assessment of soil condition of Tropical grasslands. C.S.I.R.O. Wildlife and ecology. Canberra, Australia.
45. USDA-FS. 1991. Ecological classification and inventory handbook. FSH 2090.11. Washington, D.C., USDA
46. Vepraskas, M.J. 1992. Redoximorphic features for identifying Aquic conditions. North Carolina Agr. Res. Xerv. Tech. Bull. 301. North Carolina Univ., Raleigh, N.C.
47. Weaver, J.E. 1919. The ecological relations of roots. Carnegie Institute. Washington Publ. 286, Washington, D.C.
48. West, N.E., K. McDaniel, E.L. Smith, P.T. Tueller, and S. Leanard. 1994. Monitoring and interpreting ecological integrity on arid and semi-arid lands of the western United States. New Mexico Range Improvement Task Force. Las Cruces, N.M.
49. Westoby, M., B. Walker, and I. Noy-Meyer. 1989. Opportunistic management for rangelands not at equilibrium. J. Range Manage. 42:266-274.
50. Wilson, A.D. and G.J. Tupper. 1982. Concepts and factors applicable to the measurement of range condition. J. Range Manage. 35:684-689.