• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Acknowledgement
 Introduction and project narra...
 Table of Contents
 List of Figures
 List of Tables
 Chapter 1. Stream and drainage...
 Chapter 2. Drainage basins and...
 Chapter 3. Floodplain vegetation...
 Chapter 4. Vegetation and structural...
 Chapter 5. Landscape organization...
 Chapter 6. Hydrology of native...
 Chapter 7. The hydrology of reclaimed...
 Chapter 8. Landscape reclamation...
 Chapter 9. Vegetation and structural...














PRIVATE ITEM
Digitization of this item is currently in progress.
Techniques and guidelines for reclamation of phosphate mined lands /
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00016635/00001
 Material Information
Title: Techniques and guidelines for reclamation of phosphate mined lands /
Physical Description: 1 v. (various pagings) : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Brown, Mark T ( Mark Theodore ), 1945-
Tighe, Robert E., 1954-
Florida Institute of Phosphate Research
Center for Wetlands
Publisher: Florida Institute of Phosphate Research
Place of Publication: Bartow, Fla.
Publication Date: [1991]
 Subjects
Subjects / Keywords: Reclamation of land -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Restoration ecology -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Phosphate mines and mining -- Environmental aspects -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility: Mark T. Brown and Robert E. Tighe, editors.
General Note: "Final report to Florida Institute of Phosphate Research."
General Note: "Prepared by Center for Wetlands, University of Florida"--Cover.
General Note: "July, 1991"--Cover; "March 1991"--T.p.
General Note: "Publication No. 03-044-095"--Cover.
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: ltqf - AAA9232
notis - AHY5049
oclc - 24316482
alephbibnum - 001673196
System ID: UF00016635:00001

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
        Page i-a
    Acknowledgement
        Page ii
        Page ii-a
    Introduction and project narrative
        Page iii
        Page iv
        Page v
        Page vi
        Page vii
        Page viii
    Table of Contents
        Page ix
    List of Figures
        Page x
        Page xi
        Page xii
        Page xiii
        Page xiv
    List of Tables
        Page xv
        Page xvi
    Chapter 1. Stream and drainage basin characteristics
        Page 1
        Page 1-i
        Page 1-ii
        Page 1-1
        Page 1-2
        Page 1-3
        Page 1-4
        Page 1-5
        Page 1-6
        Page 1-7
        Page 1-8
        Page 1-9
        Page 1-10
        Page 1-11
        Page 1-12
        Page 1-13
        Page 1-14
        Page 1-15
        Page 1-16
        Page 1-17
        Page 1-18
        Page 1-19
        Page 1-20
        Page 1-21
        Page 1-22
        Page 1-23
        Page 1-24
        Page 1-25
        Page 1-26
        Page 1-27
        Page 1-28
        Page 1-29
        Page 1-30
        Page 1-31
        Page 1-32
        Page 1-33
        Page 1-34
        Page 1-35
        Page 1-36
    Chapter 2. Drainage basins and regional landscape associations
        Page 2
        Page 2-i
        Page 2-ii
        Page 2-iii
        Page 2-1
        Page 2-2
        Page 2-3
        Page 2-4
        Page 2-5
        Page 2-6
        Page 2-7
        Page 2-8
        Page 2-9
        Page 2-10
        Page 2-11
        Page 2-12
        Page 2-13
        Page 2-14
        Page 2-15
        Page 2-16
        Page 2-17
        Page 2-18
        Page 2-19
        Page 2-20
        Page 2-21
        Page 2-22
        Page 2-23
        Page 2-24
        Page 2-25
        Page 2-26
        Page 2-27
        Page 2-28
        Page 2-29
        Page 2-30
        Page 2-31
        Page 2-32
        Page 2-33
        Page 2-34
        Page 2-35
        Page 2-36
    Chapter 3. Floodplain vegetation of small stream watersheds
        Page 3
        Page 3-i
        Page 3-ii
        Page 3-iii
        Page 3-1
        Page 3-2
        Page 3-3
        Page 3-4
        Page 3-5
        Page 3-6
        Page 3-7
        Page 3-8
        Page 3-9
        Page 3-10
        Page 3-11
        Page 3-12
        Page 3-13
        Page 3-14
        Page 3-15
        Page 3-16
        Page 3-17
        Page 3-18
        Page 3-19
        Page 3-20
        Page 3-21
        Page 3-22
        Page 3-23
        Page 3-24
        Page 3-25
        Page 3-26
        Page 3-27
        Page 3-28
        Page 3-29
        Page 3-30
        Page 3-31
        Page 3-32
        Page 3-33
        Page 3-34
        Page 3-35
        Page 3-36
        Page 3-37
        Page 3-38
        Page 3-39
        Page 3-40
        Page 3-41
        Page 3-42
    Chapter 4. Vegetation and structural characteristics of native ecological communities
        Page 4
        Page 4-i
        Page 4-ii
        Page 4-iii
        Page 4-1
        Page 4-2
        Page 4-3
        Page 4-4
        Page 4-5
        Page 4-6
        Page 4-7
        Page 4-8
        Page 4-9
        Page 4-10
        Page 4-11
        Page 4-12
        Page 4-13
        Page 4-14
        Page 4-15
        Page 4-16
        Page 4-17
        Page 4-18
        Page 4-19
        Page 4-20
        Page 4-21
        Page 4-22
        Page 4-23
        Page 4-24
        Page 4-25
        Page 4-26
        Page 4-27
        Page 4-28
        Page 4-29
        Page 4-30
        Page 4-31
        Page 4-32
        Page 4-33
        Page 4-34
        Page 4-35
        Page 4-36
        Page 4-37
        Page 4-38
        Page 4-39
        Page 4-40
        Page 4-41
        Page 4-42
        Page 4-43
        Page 4-44
        Page 4-45
        Page 4-46
        Page 4-47
        Page 4-48
        Page 4-49
        Page 4-50
        Page 4-51
        Page 4-52
        Page 4-53
        Page 4-54
        Page 4-55
        Page 4-56
        Page 4-57
        Page 4-58
    Chapter 5. Landscape organization and community structure of naturally reclaimed lands
        Page 5
        Page 5-i
        Page 5-ii
        Page 5-iii
        Page 5-1
        Page 5-2
        Page 5-3
        Page 5-4
        Page 5-5
        Page 5-6
        Page 5-7
        Page 5-8
        Page 5-9
        Page 5-10
        Page 5-11
        Page 5-12
        Page 5-13
        Page 5-14
        Page 5-15
        Page 5-16
        Page 5-17
        Page 5-18
        Page 5-19
        Page 5-20
        Page 5-21
        Page 5-22
        Page 5-23
        Page 5-24
        Page 5-25
        Page 5-26
        Page 5-27
        Page 5-28
        Page 5-29
        Page 5-30
        Page 5-31
        Page 5-32
        Page 5-33
        Page 5-34
        Page 5-35
        Page 5-36
        Page 5-37
        Page 5-38
        Page 5-39
        Page 5-40
        Page 5-41
        Page 5-42
        Page 5-43
        Page 5-44
        Page 5-45
        Page 5-46
        Page 5-47
        Page 5-48
        Page 5-49
        Page 5-50
        Page 5-51
        Page 5-52
        Page 5-53
        Page 5-54
    Chapter 6. Hydrology of native Florida ecosystems
        Page 6
        Page 6-i
        Page 6-ii
        Page 6-iii
        Page 6-1
        Page 6-2
        Page 6-3
        Page 6-4
        Page 6-5
        Page 6-6
        Page 6-7
        Page 6-8
        Page 6-9
        Page 6-10
        Page 6-11
        Page 6-12
        Page 6-13
        Page 6-14
        Page 6-15
        Page 6-16
        Page 6-17
        Page 6-18
        Page 6-19
        Page 6-20
        Page 6-21
        Page 6-22
        Page 6-23
        Page 6-24
        Page 6-25
        Page 6-26
        Page 6-27
        Page 6-28
        Page 6-29
        Page 6-30
        Page 6-31
        Page 6-32
        Page 6-33
        Page 6-34
    Chapter 7. The hydrology of reclaimed phosphate-mined wetlands
        Page 7
        Page 7-i
        Page 7-ii
        Page 7-iii
        Page 7-1
        Page 7-2
        Page 7-3
        Page 7-4
        Page 7-5
        Page 7-6
        Page 7-7
        Page 7-8
        Page 7-9
        Page 7-10
        Page 7-11
        Page 7-12
        Page 7-13
        Page 7-14
        Page 7-15
        Page 7-16
        Page 7-17
        Page 7-18
        Page 7-19
        Page 7-20
        Page 7-21
        Page 7-22
        Page 7-23
        Page 7-24
        Page 7-25
        Page 7-26
        Page 7-27
        Page 7-28
        Page 7-29
        Page 7-30
        Page 7-31
        Page 7-32
        Page 7-33
        Page 7-34
        Page 7-35
        Page 7-36
        Page 7-37
        Page 7-38
        Page 7-39
        Page 7-40
        Page 7-41
        Page 7-42
    Chapter 8. Landscape reclamation at Gardinier's Ft. Meade Mine
        Page 8
        Page 8-i
        Page 8-ii
        Page 8-iii
        Page 8-1
        Page 8-2
        Page 8-3
        Page 8-4
        Page 8-5
        Page 8-6
        Page 8-7
        Page 8-8
        Page 8-9
        Page 8-10
        Page 8-11
        Page 8-12
        Page 8-13
        Page 8-14
        Page 8-15
        Page 8-16
        Page 8-17
        Page 8-18
        Page 8-19
        Page 8-20
        Page 8-21
        Page 8-22
        Page 8-23
        Page 8-24
        Page 8-25
        Page 8-26
        Page 8-27
        Page 8-28
        Page 8-29
        Page 8-30
        Page 8-31
        Page 8-32
        Page 8-33
        Page 8-34
        Page 8-35
        Page 8-36
        Page 8-37
        Page 8-38
        Page 8-39
        Page 8-40
        Page 8-41
        Page 8-42
        Page 8-43
        Page 8-44
        Page 8-45
        Page 8-46
    Chapter 9. Vegetation and structural characteristics of reclaimed wetland and upland communities
        Page 9
        Page 9-i
        Page 9-ii
        Page 9-iii
        Page 9-1
        Page 9-2
        Page 9-3
        Page 9-4
        Page 9-5
        Page 9-6
        Page 9-7
        Page 9-8
        Page 9-9
        Page 9-10
        Page 9-11
        Page 9-12
        Page 9-13
        Page 9-14
        Page 9-15
        Page 9-16
        Page 9-17
        Page 9-18
        Page 9-19
        Page 9-20
        Page 9-21
        Page 9-22
        Page 9-23
Full Text






Final Report to


Florida Institute of Phosphate Research

Project # 83-03-044





TECHNIQUES AND GUIDELINES FOR RECLAMATION OF
PHOSPHATE MINED LANDS


Mark T. Brown and Robert E. Tighe, Editors




March 1991




Center for Wetlands
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611-2061
Tel. (904) 392-2424 Fax (904) 392-3624







Disclaimer (one page, supplied by FIPR)





ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


This document is based on a five-year research grant entitled "Developments of Techniques and
Guidelines for the Reclamation of Phosphate Mined Lands as Diverse Landscapes and Complete Hydrologic
Units" funded by the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. Mark T. Brown and G. Ronnie Best were
Principal Investigators. Numerous graduate students and staff at the Center for Wetlands participated in the
research and data analysis during the five-year project.
Dr. Hans Riekerk, Associate Professor in Forest Hydrology, School of Forest Resources and
Conservation, University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) was principal
investigator on a companion project related to the hydrology of reclaimed and natural landscapes.
The following graduate students were associated with the project in various capacities:


Mary Davis

Craig Diamond
Steven Doherty
James Feiertag
Francesca Gross
Rose Hassoun
Mark Marro
Michael Miller
Thomas Monroe
Jan Sendzimir
Mona Sullivan
Scott Swank
Robert Tighe
Pete Wallace


Field ecology, reclaimed and native communities, data synthesis and
analysis, data appendix.
Data analysis
Landscape ecology of reclaimed and native communities
Field technician
Small stream floodplain communities
Landscape ecology of reclaimed lands
Drafting, cartography
Data analysis, field ecology
Data Analysis, Computer Programming
Field technician
Landscape organization
Hydrology of native communities
Geomorphology of watersheds, hydrology of natural landscapes
Field ecology, reclaimed and native communities


Staff who contributed to the project were as follows: Peter Straub (Biological Scientist II) was in
charge of field technicians and field data, Robert Berger (Biological Scientist I), with the Forest Hydrology
and Mechanical Lab, IFAS, was responsible for all hydrology equipment and data collection. Jose
Hernandez, Dale Cronwell, R. Shane Best, Jack Pierce, Rodney Pond, Steve Brown, and Steve Roguski
provided field assistance.
Steve Roguski and Donna Ryder, cartographers and draftspersons at the Center for Wetlands,
provided expert drafting, design, and illustration for all phases of the project as well as data management
Jenny Carter and Linda Crowder provided word processing of progress reports and manuscripts.
The final technical report was edited and formatted by Kristina Gaidry.
Contract officers at the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research were Dr. David Robertson and Dr.
Steve Richardson.












TECHNIQUES AND GUIDELINES FOR RECLAMATION OF PHOSPHATE MINED LANDS


Mark T. Brown and Robert E. Tighe





INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT NARRATIVE




This is the final technical report to the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research on results of the
research project: "Techniques and Guidelines for the Reclamation of Phosphate Mined Lands as Diverse
Landscapes and Complete Hydrologic Units." Mark T. Brown and G. Ronnie Best were Principal
Investigators. The final results of a companion project on hydrology of phosphate mined lands, Hans
Riekerk Principal Investigator, are also included. Accompanying this report is a data appendix that contains
extensive tables and figures that further summarize the data collected over the duration of the project. A
book entitled Landscape Restoration: A Reclamation Manualfor Phosphate Mined Lands is being prepared
by the Center for Wetlands and is forthcoming.



Historical Background

This project began in 1984 and spanned 5.75 years. The principal field research was carried out
in north Florida in the Suwannee River Basin and in the central Florida phosphate district, in and around
the Peace River Basin. Numerous mined land research sites were located on lands owned by Gardinier,
International Mineral Corporation, Mobil, and Occidental Chemical.
While there had been some research conducted prior to 1984 concerning techniques of reclamation
at the ecological system scale, there was a dearth of information related to landscape scale reclamation.
It was apparent that there was a need for research that addressed a larger scale above the level of ecosystem
reclamation. In addition it was apparent that information was lacking on the structural properties of
ecological systems that were necessary as the "ingredients" for constructing ecological communities. It was
felt that both a comprehensive study of native Florida ecosystems and a thorough study of the potentials
of reclaimed lands were necessary to develop guidelines and techniques for reclamation.
Several ongoing reclamation projects funded by other agencies and phosphate companies provided
fruitful early information and sites for continued study over the 5.75 years of the project. Most important
to this project was the work at Agrico's Morrow Swamp, at Occidential's Suwannee River Plant, and the
project known as SP-6 at Gardinier's Ft. Meade Mine. The latter was a funded project by Gardinier to









design and monitor a reclamation scheme on a 33-acre site adjacent to an existing forested floodplain and
abandoned clay settling area. This site became an important test facility for many techniques developed
as a result of the research conducted under this project.
In the first years of this project, 9.2 kilometers of vegetation transects were established in 7
associations of native upland and wetland communities throughout north and central Florida. On each
transect vegetation was identified and recorded and groundwater wells were installed that monitored ground
and surface water levels for the life of the project. A companion project directed by H. Riekerk was funded
to study the hydrology of reclaimed and unreclaimed lands. Extensive networks of groundwater wells and
surface water flumes were installed on several reclaimed watersheds and natural control watersheds. Also
in the first years, several studies were conducted of landscape scale organization, including: analysis of the
stream and drainage basin characteristics, regional landscape associations, and regional organization of
phosphate mined landscapes.
Beginning in the third year, transects in reclaimed landscapes were established and changes in
vegetation were monitored over the next several growing seasons. Also in the third year work began on
studies of naturally reclaimed lands. In this study, mined lands and old agricultural fields were evaluated
and compared to determine to effects of distance from seed source and environmental constraints on long-
term succession. Several of the sites were greater than 60 years since the time of abandonment.



Contents of the Report

This report is organized into nine chapters within four sections. The sections reflect the overall
hierarchical organization of the project In the first section, two chapters report on analysis of indices of
landscape organization. The second section has 3 chapters that report on the development of indices of
ecosystem structure. The third section is devoted to two chapters on the hydrology of native and reclaimed
landscapes. And finally, the last section reports on case studies of reclamation designs and evaluation of
revegetation success.
A data appendix containing most of the data for each of the chapters in this report, accompanies
(bound as a separate volume) this report The various appendices are numbered with Roman numerals that
correspond to the chapter numbers in this volume. A book on landscape restoration that is a reclamation
manual for phosphate mined lands involving the synthesis of results from this research as well as other
reclamation projects is forthcoming.



Summary of Results

The results given here are the final technical results from numerous single initiatives all aimed at
developing a critical mass of information concerning the organization of landscapes and ecological
communities typical of north and central Florida and the physical characteristics of reclaimed phosphate
mined lands. The project was organized hierarchically, in a top down approach beginning with the driving
forces that organize landscapes and ending with plant/soil moisture relationships and growth and survival









of tree seedlings planted in reclaimed lands. Hydrology, both surface and groundwater, is the single most
important driving energy that organizes and maintains landscape structure. As a result, much effort was
directed at documenting surface and groundwater conditions in both native and reclaimed landscapes
Detailed analysis of stream and drainage basin characteristics of north central Florida developed
principles and indices of their organization. The smallest streams, called first order streams, had drainage
basins of about 1 sq mile, slopes of about 37 feet per mile (18.1 m/km), and 38% of total are in headwaters
having no defined stream channel. Generally the physical characteristics of stream channels change from
flat, braided headwaters channels with large accumulations of organic matter to more deeply incised
channels with minor organic matter accumulation in the lower reaches. Drainage basins, on the whole, had
more wetland area in their headwaters than in the channelway. With increasing slope of drainage basin the
acreage of isolated wetlands decreased, but floodplain wetlands remained constant. Clay settling areas
(CSA) seemed analogous to first order drainage basins in size and slope, but older CSA's do not seem to
have much surface water runoff. Instead they seemed to contribute to groundwater flows and surface
seepage at the toe of their dikes.
The vegetation of small stream floodplains varied with soils and physical characteristics of stream.
The upper reaches (headwaters) tended to be dominated by broad leafed evergreen and pond cypress because
of the nearly continuous saturated conditions and minor degree of flooding that characterize the high organic
soils of these areas. Lower reaches tended to be more incised flood on a regular basis, but remain
unflooded for much of the year. Vegetation of the lower reaches tends to be dominated by broad leafed
deciduous trees and bald cypress. Depth and duration of flooding increased from headwaters to mouth of
most first order streams, affecting the micro environmental conditions and soil characteristics which in turn
affects plant community structure. Analysis of data on landscape position and degree of flooding revealed
species tolerances to flooding and suggested mixes of species for planting under different floodplain
conditions as well as physical design constraints on streams and channelways in the reclaimed landscape.
Ecological communities were studied at 37 different sites across north and central Florida
comprising seven ecological associations. Associations are composed of two community types, a wetland
and upland in association. Ranges of water depth, duration of flooding, and depth to groundwater were
analyzed. Characteristic soil chemistry and soil organic matter were measured. Topography and "micro-
topographic relief' were found to be important determinants of depth and duration of flooding in wetlands
and soil moisture relationships in uplands. Tree, shrub and herbaceous vegetation were measured for each
community type and degree of flooding for each species calculated from about five years of water level data
collected on all field sites. These data suggested the best "fit of community types and vegetation species
for given environmental conditions within the reclaimed landscape.
Many older phosphate mined lands have been "naturally reclaimed", that is, slopes have changed
and drainage features developed through weathering, and lands have revegetated through natural seeding
from surrounding forested areas. Studies of naturally reclaimed agricultural and phosphate mined lands
suggested that seed sources on phosphate mined lands are limited by the scale of mining, but where seeds
are available, communities develop that are somewhat analogous to native communities. Although relative
stocking rates and basal areas of trees on post-mined lands were often greater than those parameters
measured on native upland communities, species richness was lower. Species richness and density of trees
increased with age on naturally reclaimed mined sites. The forest communities that developed on mined









lands most closely resembled upland mesic hammocks. Fire appeared to be an important control absent
from naturally reclaimed lands, especially mining spoils that were surrounded by water.
Analysis of the surface and surficial groundwater hydrology of native landscapes showed the
importance of hydrologic regime on type of wetland community. Isolated depressions such as cypress
domes and shallow marshes were most frequently found in the upper portions of drainage basins in intimate
contact with the surficial aquifer. Rainfall and subsurface inflows immediately following rain events
dominated their hydrology creating wide fluctuations in water levels and frequency of inundation. Mixed
hardwood swamps and bayheads (bay swamps), on the other hand, tended to be located in areas where
rainfall played less of a roll in determining their hydrology. Bayheads had little fluctuation in water levels,
remaining saturated but not inundated throughout the year. Mixed hardwood swamps were intermediate
between the widely fluctuating cypress swamps and marshes and the more stable bayheads. Investigations
of mined land hydrology suggested that older clay settling areas do not have surface water runoff once clays
have dried, desiccated, and support trees, but instead contribute significant groundwater flows and could
support functional bay communities at seepage locations around the base of their dikes.
In general, mined lands were categorized into two general types of seepage wetland watersheds; (1)
watersheds with consistently low runoff/rainfall ratios, and (2) watersheds with larger ratios that approached
unity for significant portions of the year. The surface hydrology of the first category was dominated by a
significant storage capacity and/or net groundwater loss, while the second category was mainly controlled
by low storage capacity and/or net groundwater gain.
A reclamation scheme was designed and constructed on mined lands owned by Gardinier that
offered the opportunity to test numerous design alternatives and revegetation techniques as well as reclaimed
land hydrology. Perched, seepage, and basin wetlands were constructed and mulched. Seed dispersal
studies from an adjacent forested wetland revealed that bird dispersal can be a significant contribution of
plant material to reclaimed sites, especially those that are distant from potential wind blown sources.
Groundwater flows from an adjacent clay settling are a dominated site hydrology maintaining saturated soils
throughout much of the site and promoting rapid growth and excellent survival of planted vegetation.
Analysis of tree seedling survival and growth response to water levels on seven reclaimed sites
showed that greatest survival and growth of wetland tree seedlings occurred on soils where depth and
duration of inundation was minor, but where soils were saturated. Development of correct wetland
hydrology (depths and duration of flooding) in newly reclaimed sites could be compromised with planted
seedlings unless methods are employed to plant seedling on raised beds or "hummocks." Correct wetland
hydrology can then be maintained and seedling growth and survival optimized by the better growing
conditions of the high moist hummocks.
Investigations of landscape and community organization provided indices and organizational
principles for the design and construction of reclaimed lands. Evaluation of mined land including its
hydrology, revegetation and growth and survival of tree seedlings provided important information concerning
the potential for reclamation. Combined, these parallel investigations provided necessary design constraints
for the re-creation of functional ecological communities, diverse landscapes and operational hydrology on
mined lands.








Long Range Research Needs


There still remain many unanswered questions regarding the long-term trends of reclaimed
landscapes. The following points are suggestions for continued and long-term research.

1. While reclamation efforts continue to concentrate on revegetation of forested systems through
planting of canopy tree species, little attention is given to shrub and herbaceous
vegetation. It was quite apparent from our evaluation of reclaimed systems that while
several of the tree species planted were common in native Florida ecological communities,
the understory vegetation that may in the long run be more important to wildlife was
absent. Evaluation of the successional trends and best methods of shrub and herbaceous
species revegetation should be an important reclamation research goal.

2. Many of the older mined areas are beginning to be reclaimed bit by bit, one parcel at a time.
Other lands that were not mined, but that are adjacent to mined lands are being developed.
As these lands are reclaimed and surrounding lands are developed, surface hydrology and
the overall hydrologic function of the Peace River should be of paramount concern. A
serious overall regional planning effort is needed to define new watershed boundaries and
begin to propose reclamation schemes that enhance surface hydrology.

3. In many of the naturally reclaimed landscapes exotic vegetation including: brazilian pepper,
china berry, and camphor have become important components of the plant community.
These species may become invasive on current reclamation projects in the future,
especially if the seed sources continue to increase. The long-term consequences of and
the role of exotic species on reclaimed lands will become more and more important as
mining continues to move southward.

4. The use of phosphate mined lands for recycling of treated sewage effluent has been proposed
in areas near urban centers. Also the disposal of sewage sludge has been proposed on
reclaimed lands as a means of increasing soil organic matter. Tests of the nutrient and
metal dynamics within reclaimed soils and watersheds are warranted to help in decisions
regarding these timely topics.

5. It is common belief that cat-tails and willow out-compete other vegetation for light and
nutrients, in essence maintaining a monospicific community through competitive
exclusion. All indications from analysis of old and new reclamation projects in this study
suggests that this is not the case. Trials of growth and survival of vegetation within
differing competitive environments are needed to once and for all answer the fundamental
bias against these two colonizing species.









6. Finally, the role of "seed islands" in natural revegetation of mined landscapes was demonstrated
to be of importance to reclamation through the actions of wind and wildlife on seed
dispersal. Research is needed on the size and spacing of seed islands for optimum
dispersal and on the economics of forgoing some phosphate deposits where seed islands
are left intact verses the benefits of reduced reclamation costs and increased diversity and
genetic variation.








TABLE OF CONTENTS


VOLUME I

Chapter 1. Stream and Drainage Basin Characteristics
by Robert E. Tighe ................................................ 1-1

Chapter 2. Drainage Basins and Regional Landscape Associations
by M ona F. Sullivan ............................................... 2-1

Chapter 3. Floodplain Vegetation of Small Stream Watersheds
by Francesca E. H. Gross ........................................... 3-1

Chapter 4. Vegetation and Structural Characteristics of Native Ecological Communities
by Mary M. Davis, Mark T. Brown, and G. Ronnie Best ...................... 4-1

Chapter 5. Landscape Organization and Community Structure of Naturally Reclaimed Land
by Steven Doherty ................................................ 5-1

Chapter 6. Hydrology of Native Florida Ecosystems
by Robert E. Tighe and Mark T. Brown ................................. 6-1

Chapter 7. The Hydrology of Reclaimed Phosphate-Mined Wetlands
by Hans Riekerk, Lawrence V. Korhnak, and Mark T. Brown .................. 7-1

Chapter 8. Landscape Reclamation at Gardinier's Ft. Meade Mine
by Mark T. Brown, Robert E. Tighe, and Timothy R. McClanahan ............... 8-1

Chapter 9. Vegetation and Structural Characteristics of Reclaimed Wetland and Upland Communities
by Mary M. Davis, Mark T. Brown, Steven Doherty, and Robert E. Tighe .......... 9-1


VOLUME H APPENDICES

Appendix I to Stream Drainage Basin Characteristics ................................. I-1

Appendix II--omitted

Appendix Il to Floodplain Vegetation of Small Stream Watersheds ..................... III-1

Appendix IV to Vegetation and Structural Characteristics of Native Ecological Communities .... IV-1

Appendix V to Landscape Organization and Community Structure of Naturally Reclaimed Land .. V-1

Appendix VI to Hydrology of Native Florida Ecosystems ............................. VI-1

Appendix VII to The Hydrology of Reclaimed Phosphate-Mined Wetlands ................ VII-1

Appendix VII--omitted

Appendix IX Vegetation and Structural Characteristics of Reclaimed Wetland and Upland
Comm unities ................................................... IX-1










LIST OF FIGURES


Figure # Page#

Chapter 1
1.1 Comparison of stream classification systems for a drainage network with nine first-order
stream s ............................................................ 1-4
1.2 Rivers of Florida studied in this report .................................... 1-9
1.3 Portion of USGS Deep Creek quadrangle showing wetland symbol and broken line
segments as indicators of channel network ................................... 1-11
1.4 Basic geomorphic parameters studied ...................................... 1-15
1.5 Locations of study areas for field measurements ............................... 1-20
1.6 Horton plots of stream numbers, areas and lengths ............................. 1-22
1.7 Drainage areas versus magnitude for six basins ............................... 1-23
1.8 Basin length versus drainage area for six basins ............................... 1-24
1.9 Stream length versus drainage area for six basins .............................. 1-26
1.10 Basin slope versus drainage area for six basins ................................ 1-27
1.11 Stream slope versus drainage for six basins .................................. 1-28
1.12 Drainage density versus drainage area and basin slope in the Alafia River basin ......... 1-30

Chapter 2
2.1 Determination of headwater/channelway zone boundary: (a) first-order basins, (b) basins of
second-order or greater.................................................. 2-2
2.2 Location of study areas .................................................. 2-3
2.3 Sample work map. .................................................... 2-7
2.4 Changes in upland/wetland area ratio with changes in slope: (a) headwater zones,
(b) channelway zones. .................................................. 2-12
2.5 Changes in logarithm of wetland ara with changes in slope: (a) headwater zones,
(b) channelway zones. ................................................. 2-13
2.6 Changes in the logarithm of basin wetland area with changes in basin slope ........... 2-14
2.7 Changes in the logarithm of basin wetland area with changes in basin slope by basin size
-class: (a) basins 10.1-100.0 ha, (b) basins 100.1-1000.0 ha, (c) basins 1000.1-10,000.0 ha,
(d) basins 10,000.1-100,000.0 ha. ......................................... 2-17
2.8 Changes in wetland frequency with changes in wetland size-class. .................. 2-25
2.9 Changes in percent of total area with changes in wetland size-class. ................. 2-26
2.10 Changes in percent of total wetland area with changes in wetland size-class. ........... 2-27
2.11 Representative drainage basins of north Florida: (a) 10.1-100.0 ha basin size-class,
(b) 100.1-1000.0 ha basin size-class. ...................................... 2-28
2.12 Representative drainage basins of north Florida: (a) 1000.1-10,000.0 ha basin size-class,
(b) 10,000.1-100,000 ha basin size-class. .................................... 2-29
2.13 Representative drainage basins of central Florida: (a) 10.1-100.0 ha basin size-class,
(b) 100.1-1000.0 ha basin size-class, (c) 1000.1-10,000.0 ha basin size-class. ........... 2-30
2.14 Representative drainage basins of central Florida: 10,000.1-100,000.0 ha basin size-class. 2-31
2.15 Changes in basin area with changes in order number. ........................ .. 2-33
2.16 Changes in basin slope with changes in basin area. .................. .......... 2-34

Chapter 3
3.1 Map of Florida with the location of the 12 stream study sites. ..................... 3-5
3.2 Width and length of study plots and scheme for sampling canopy trees, subcanopy trees,
woody tree and shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation. .............................. 3-8









LIST OF FIGURES cont'd.


3.3 Typical cross-section profiles through (a) headwaters, (b) midreach, and (c) lower reach,
showing surface or surficial groundwater (one-day observation), organic matter depth,
and relative elevation of groundwater. ...................................... 3-17
3.4 Tree diagram representing a sample data set of four clusters divided at root-mean-square
value of .87.................. ...................................... 3-19
3.5 Scatter plot diagram for first three principal components from peat depth, line distance and
elevation values for the individual trees in the previous tree diagram. ................ 3-20
3.6 Cross-section profile of typical midreach site (top) compared to canopy tree species
distribution (bottom) ................................................... 3-21
3.7 Cross-section profile of typical midreach site (top) compared to subcanopy tree species
distribution (bottom) ................................................... 3-22
3.8 Histograms of importance values of major species for 12 vegetation associations ........ 3-29
3.9 Average organic matter depth by vegetation type. ............................... 3-30
3.10 Percent importance value of major species for three stream reaches. ................. 3-32
3.11 Typical cross-sectional profiles for incised streams showing distribution of vegetation type. 3-33
3.12 Typical cross-sectional profiles for flat streams showing distribution of vegetation types. .. 3-34
3.13 Tree diagram representing similarity of stream basin importance values from cluster
analysis for canopy species. ............................................. 3-38

Chapter 4
4.1 Location of transects in native plant associations. ............................... 4-5
4.2 Sampling design for quantitative measurements on vegetation transects. .............. 4-10
4.3 Use of ecotone boundaries to determine wetland length along transect ............... 4-14
4.4 Typical ground surface profiles for native plant communities of central Florida ......... 4-22
4.5 Seasonal ground level fluctuations in native plant communities of central Florida ....... 4-26
4.6 Summary diagram of importance values for typical ecological community. ............ 4-46

Chapter 5
5.1 Map of nested study sites for landscape organization and analysis of naturally reclaimed
lands in central Florida. ................................................. 5-5
5.2 Portion of a land-use and land-cover map of the upper Peace River basin (Bartow quadrant). 5-13
5.3 Size class distributions for land-use and land-cover in the upper Peace River basin. ...... 5-16
5.4 Site perimeter graphed as a polynomial function of area for all study sites. ............ 5-20
5.5 Percent forested perimeter graphed as a function of percent forest cover within 800 m of
site border.......................................................... 5-21
5.6 Site 49; Saddle Creek Park, a 32-year-old, abandoned mining cut in the upper Peace River
basin of Polk County. ................................................. 5-22
5.7 Site 53; Holloway tract, a 37-year-old, abandoned mining cut in the upper Peace River
basin of Polk County. ................................................. 5-24
5.8 Number of tree species present as a logarithmic function of age for (a) phosphate-mined sites
and (b) agriculturally altered sites. ......................................... 5-31
5.9 Percent litter cover as a logarithmic function of age for (a) phosphate-mined sites and
(b) agriculturally altered sites. ........................................... 5-32
5.10 Total basal area of tree stems > 5 cm DBH as a function of age for (a) phosphate-mined sites
and (b) agriculturally altered sites. ......................................... 5-37
5.11 Tree stem density (number of trees/ha) as a function of age for (a) phosphate-mined sites
and (b) agriculturally altered sites. ....................................... 5-38











LIST OF FIGURES cont'd.


5.12 Similarity of average importance value (IV) for trees within age classes of mined and
agricultural sites. JC = Jaccard's coefficient of similarity based on tree species
presence; PS = Percent similarity based on tree importance value. .................. 5-43
5.13 Similarity of average importance values (IV) for trees occurring on plots in mined (M)
and agricultural (A) lands with four natural communities of the region. JC = Jaccard's
coefficient of similarity based on tree species presence; PS = Percent similarity based
on tree importance values. .............................................. 5-46

Chapter 6
6.1 Forested wetlands arranged according to the volume of waters flowing through with
available nutrients. .................................................... 6-3
6.2 A generalized hydrolic cycle for Florida. .................................... 6-5
6.3 Location of groundwater monitoring sites. .................................... 6-9
6.4 Ground surface profile, showing typical location and construction of groundwater wells. ... 6-12
6.5 Use of ecotone boundaries to determine wetland length along transect. ............... 6-16
6.6 Elevation profile for transect SMT2, showing change in water level in wells, February-
June 1986 .......... ............................................... 6-18
6.7 Hydrograph (a) and inundation curves (b) for SMT2, 1986-1988. Hydroperiod values
for each year are shown above the hydrograph in the upper graph .................. 6-19
6.8 Elevation profile for transect WTA1, showing change in water level in wells, April-
July 1988. ....................................................... 6-21
6.9 (a) Hydrograph and (b) inundation curves for WTA1, 1986-1988 ................... 6-22
6.10 Elevation profile for transect HHP2, showing change in water level in wells, June-
September 1989. ................... ............................... 6-23
6.11 (a) Hydrograph and (b) inundation curves for HHP2, 1986-1988. Hydroperiod values
for each year are shown above the hydrograph in upper graph ..................... 6-24
6.12 Elevation profile for transect OST1, showing change in water level in wells, March-
June 1986 ......................................................... 6-26
6.13 (a) Hydrograph and (b) inundation curves for OSTI, 1986-1988. Hydroperiod values
for each year are shown above the hydrograph in upper graph ..................... 6-27
6.14 Elevation profile for transect LLS1, showing change in water level in wells, June-
September 1988. ................... ................................ 6-28
6.15 (a) Hydrograph and (b) inundation curves for LLSI, 1986-1988. Hydroperiod values
for each year are shown above the hydrograph in the upper graph .................. 6-29
6.16 Range of fluctuations of water levels in central wetland wells for (a) period of record,
and (b) average annual values. ........................................... 6-30

Chapter 7
7.1 Maps of the study watershed: A = Gardinier, B = Pembroke, C = Kingsford, D = Dogleg,
E = Bradford Forest, F = Morman Branch. .................................. 7-8
7.2 Monthly rainfall input and output runoff flows and resulting water balances for the
Gardinier watershed. .................................................. 7-11
7.3 Periodic measurements of groundwater velocity (arrow length) and direction in the
Gardinier watershed. ................................................. 7-12
7.4 Water table gradients and seasonal changes in two East-West and North-South
transects of the Gardinier watershed. ...................................... 7-13
7.5 Monthly rainfall and water table trends in perimeter piezometer wells of the Gardinier
watershed. ......................................... ............... 7-14










LIST OF FIGURES cont'd.


7.6 Monthly rainfall and runoff outflows, and resulting water balances for the Pembroke
WS-4 watershed..................................................... 7-16
7.7 Periodic measurements of groundwater velocity (arrow length) and direction in the
Pembroke WS-4 watershed. .......................................... 7-17
7.8 Water table gradients and seasonal changes in several transects of the Pembroke WS-4
watershed. ........................................................ 7-18
7.9 Monthly rainfall and water table trends in recording central wells of the Pembroke WS-1,
WS-2, and WS-4 watersheds. ............................................ 7-19
7.10 Monthly rainfall and water table trends in perimeter piezometer wells of the Pembroke
watersheds ....................................... ............. 7-20
7.11 Monthly rainfall and runoff outflows, and resulting water balances for the Kingsford
watershed. ......................................................... 7-22
7.12 Periodic measurements of groundwater velocity (arrow length) and direction in the
Kingsford watershed ................................................... 7-23
7.13 Monthly rainfall and water table trends in perimeter piezometer wells in the
Kingsford watershed.................................................. 7-24
7.14 Monthly rainfall and runoff outflows, and resulting water balances for the Dogleg
watershed. ............................................... .......... 7-25
7.15 Periodic measurements of groundwater velocity (arrow length) and direction in the
Dogleg watershed.................. .................................. 7-26
7.16 Monthly rainfall and water table trends in perimeter piezometer wells in the
Dogleg watershed.................. .................................. 7-27
7.17 Monthly rainfall and runoff outflows, and resulting water balances for the Bradford
Forest WS-3 control watershed. .......................................... 7-29
7.18 Periodic measurements of groundwater velocity (arrow length) and direction in the
Bradford Forest watershed perimeters. ...................................... 7-30
7.19 Monthly rainfall and water table trends in perimeter piezometer wells of the Bradford
Forest WS-3 control watershed. .......................................... 7-31
7.20 Monthly rainfall and runoff outflows and resulting water balances for the Morman Branch
control watershed ................................................... 7-32
7.21 The relationship between stormflow and rainfall, or hydrologic response, of the Morman
Branch control watershed. .............................................. 7-33

Chapter 8
8.1 General site location .................................................... 8-2
8.2 Gardinier reclamation site, showing surrounding land uses. ....................... 8-4
8.3 Reclamatinon scheme at Gardinier site. ...................................... 8-5
8.4 Elevation profiles across Gardinier site, along transects shown on 8.3. ................ 8-6
8.5 Hydrologic and vegetation monitoring networks at Gardinier site ..................... 8-9
8.6 Arrangement of seed traps for study of (a) wind dispersal and (b) animal dispersal of
seeds (after Wolfe 1987)................................................. 8-16
8.7 Germinated seedlings along transects S1-S3 at Gardinier site (see 8.5) ............... 8-24
8.8 Wind dispersal of seeds from Whidden Creek floodplain forest onto the Gardinier site,
(a) January-December 1985, and (b) July-December 1983. ........................ 8-26
8.9 Seed dispersal from snags at the Gardinier site 7/84-2/86. ......................... 8-29
8.10 Bird dispersal of seeds from snags. ........................................ 8-31
8.11 Bird dispersal of seeds from constructed perches. .............................. 8-32
8.12 Density of water-borne seeds downstream from mined land and the Whidden Creek
floodplain forest. ...................................................... 8-34










LIST OF FIGURES cont'd.


8.13 Surface water budget at Gardinier site, June 1985 to May 1989 ..................... 8-35
8.14 Water levels in wells at several locations along the (a) N-S and (b) E-W transects at
Gardinier site (see Figures 8.3 and 8.4)...................................... 8-38
8.15 Maximum and minimum water levels in wells along (a) GDN1 and (b) GDN2. ......... 8-39
8.16 (a) Seed rain at Gardinier reclamation site in 1983, compared to (b) seed bank in 1990
as measured by flotation of seeds from soil samples, (c) germination in a greenhouse,
and (d) natural regeneration on site ....................................... 8-42
8.17 (a) Total numbers of seeds in the initial (1983) seed rain and follow-up (1990) seed
bank analysis; (b) diversity of seed species in each of the seed bank categories ......... 8-44

Chapter 9
9.1 Ground surface profiles for reclaimed communities on phosphate-mined lands. .......... 9-8
9.2 Typical ground surface profiles for native plant communities of central Florida .......... 9-9
9.3 Seasonal ground level fluctuations in reclaimed communities on phosphate-mined lands. ... 9-11
9.4 Seasonal ground level fluctuations in native plant communities of central Florida. ....... 9-12
9.5 Effect of hydroperiod on the growth and survival of cypress (Taxodium spp.) .......... 9-18
9.6 Mean growth and percent survival of individual tree species planted on reclaimed
phosphate-mined sites.................................................. 9-19
9.7 Growth of wetland tree species planted in reclaimed phosphate-mined communities ...... 9-20
9.8 Survival of wetland tree species planted in reclaimed phosphate-mined communities. ..... 9-21










LIST OF TABLES


Table # Page#

Chapter 2
2.1 Median values for variables exhibiting significant differences between basin orders ...... 2-15
2.2 Mean values for basin variables by basin size-class for all basins. .................. 2-18
2.3 Median values for basin variables exhibiting significant differences between geographic
locales. .......................................... ................ 2-20
2.4 Mean values for basin variables by basin size-class for north Florida basins. ........... 2-21
2.5 Mean values for basin variables by basin size-class for central Florida basins. .......... 2-22
2.6 Mean values for zone variables in north Florida. ................................ 2-23
2.7 Mean values for zone variables in central Florida. ................. ......... ..2-24

Chapter 3
3.1 W atershed Basin Characteristics .......................................... 3-12
3.2 Stream Transect Length (m) ............... ............................. 3-13
3.3 Physical Characteristics of Incised and Flat Stream Types. ........................ 3-14
3.4 Stream Basin Areas by Reach (Hectares). ................................... 3-15
3.5 Stream Basin Areas by Reach (Hectares). ................................... 3-16
3.6 Importance values of total canopy species listed by vegetation type. ................. 3-23
3.7 Tree Species List .................................................... 3-24
3.8 Summary of Vegetation Type Characteristics ................................. 3-31
3.9 List of Importance Values for Species from Stream Reach Cluster Analysis. ........... 3-35
3.10 Cluster Analysis Cluster Numbers per Reach Site from Composite Analysis of 36 Reach
Sites............................................................... 3-36

Chapter 4
4.1 Summary of Area Sampled by Community Association ........................... 4-6
4.2 Ground-surface profile parameters of natural plant communities. ................... 4-18
4.3 Ground-surface profile parameters of wetland communities ....................... 4-19
4.4 Hydrologic regimes of native wetland plant communities. ....................... 4-23
4.5 Soil constituents of native plant communities. ................................ 4-27
4.6 Tree, shrub, and woody vine species identified in eight natural plant communities in north
central Florida ..................................................... 4-30
4.7 Indices of tree (stems > 5 cm DBH) distributions in native plant communities. ......... 4-34
4.8 Frequency occurrence and mean relative importance values of common tree species. ..... 4-35
4.9 Shrub species distributions in native plant communities. ......................... 4-41
4.10 Shrub and herbaceous species richness in native plant communities of north central Florida. 4-42
4.11 Environmental conditions of common tree species in natural communities. ............ 4-43

Chapter 5
5.1 Land use and ecological cover classification system for the upper Peace River drainage
basin and the analysis of areas surrounding abandoned, disturbed lands in central Florida. ... 5-7
5.2 Land-use and ecological cover for the upper Peace River drainage basin. ............. 5-14
5.3 Spatial hierarchies of land-use and ecological cover in the upper Peace River basin. ..... 5-15
5.4 Area, perimeter, percent forested border and percent forest cover within 800 m of site
boundary for mined and agriculturally altered, age classes 2 and 3 ( > 16 years
since abandonment). ................................................ 5-18
5.5 Herbaceous, shrub and tree species occurring on at least 10% of the post-mined and
agriculturally altered sites. .............................................. 5-25









LIST OF TABLES cont'd


5.5 Herbaceous, shrub and tree species occurring on at least 10% of the post-mined and
agriculturally altered sites. ......................................... ..... 5-25
5.6 Number of herbaceous, shrub, and tree species found on naturally reclaimed sites. ....... 5-28
5.7 Basal area, tree, and shrub densities, and percent dead trees for mined and agriculturally
altered lands ........................................................ 5-35
5.8 Average tree densities (D), basal areas (BA), relative densities (RD), relative basal areas
(RBA), and importance values (IV) for three age classes of mined and agricultural lands. 5-39
5.9 Similarity indices for comparing tree species of natural plant communities with those
found on disturbed lands .. ....................... ....... ............... 5-45

Chapter 6
6.1 Groundwater transect codes and ecological associations. ............ ............ 6-10
6.2 Water level ranges and hydroperiods at wetland wells. ......................... 6-32

Chapter 7
7.1 Average monthly evapotranspiration of crops and pine in mm/month. .................. 7-5
7.2 Annual water balances of the study watersheds............................ .. 7-35

Chapter 8
8.1 Area of wetlands in proposed reclamation scheme for Gardinier reclamation site. ......... 8-7
8.2 Species planted mychorrhizae plots. .......... ....................... .. 8-10
8.3 Vegetative characteristics of trees (> 5 cm DBH) in the Whidden Creek Floodplain Swamp. 8-20
8.4 Tree seedlings found along transects of Gardinier reclamation site. .................. 8-21
8.5 Components of Seed Dispersal in Disturbed Landscapes ........................ 8-23
8.6 Density of seeds/m2/month and percent composition of seeds dispersed from a. forest edge. 8-27
8.7 Seeds caught adjacent to the Whidden Creek floodplain from July 28 to December 4, 1983. 8-28
8.8 List of seeds collected beneath snags less than 240 m from a seed source. ............. 8-30
8.9 Turbidity and (NTU) at the Gardinier site .............................. ..... 8-36

Chapter 9
9.1 Soil constituents of reclaimed phosphate-mined sites. ........................... 9-13
9.2 Summary of growth and survival indices of tree seedlings planted on 8 reclaimed
phosphate-mined sites........ ..... .. ........... ... ..... ............... 9-16





















Chapter 1
STREAM AND DRAINAGE
BASIN CHARACTERISTICS
by Robert E. Tighe










TABLE OF CONTENTS



STREAM AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS ........................... 1
INTRODUCTION ................................................... 1
Geomorphology .............................................. 2
Delineation of Florida Stream Channels ........................ 2
Stream Network Classification .............................. 2
Stream Lengths ......................................... 3
Drainage Density ....................................... 5
Stream Slope .......................................... 6
Channel Pattern ........................................ 6
M ETH O D S ........................................................ 8
Study Areas ................................................. 8
Stream Channel Delineation and Cartographic Interpretation ................ 8
Geomorphic Indices ........................................... 14
Stream Topology ...................................... 14
Drainage Boundaries .................................... 14
Basin Area (A: mi) .................................... 16
Basin Topology ....................................... 16
Stream Length (Ls: mi) .................................. 16
Stream Slope (Ss: ft/mi) .................................. 17
Basin Length (L,: mi) ................................... 17
Basin Slope (SB: ft/mi) .................................. 17
Sinuosity (SI) .......................................... 18
Drainage Density (Dd: mi/mi) ............................. 18
Field Studies ................................................ 19
Sinuousity ........................................... 19
Stream Slope ......................................... 19
RESULTS ....................................................... 21
Geomorphic Indices ........................................... 21
Stream Topology ...................................... 21
Basin Length ........................................ 25
Stream Length ........................................ 25
Basin and Stream Slopes ................................. 25
Sinuousity .......................................... 25
Drainage Density ...................................... 29
Field Studies ......................................... 29
DISCUSSION ......................... ............ ............... 31
Potential Applications ................................... 31
LITERATURE CITED ............................................... 33










LIST OF FIGURES


Figure 1.1 Comparison of stream classification systems for a drainage network with 9 first-
order stream s. ................................................ 4
Figure 1.2 Rivers of Florida studied in this report. .................. ........... 9
Figure 1.3 Portion of USGS Deep Creek quadrangle showing wetland symbol and broken
line segments as indicators of channel network. ...................... 11
Figure 1.4 Basic geomorphic parameters studied. .............................. 15
Figure 1.5 Locations of study areas for field measurements ....................... 20
Figure 1.6 Horton plots of stream numbers, areas and lengths ...................... 22
Figure 1.7 Drainage areas versus magnitude for six basins. ....................... 23
Figure 1.8 Basin length versus drainage area for six basins. ....................... 24
Figure 1.9 Stream length versus drainage area for six basins ....................... 26
Figure 1.10 Basin slope versus drainage area for six basins. ....................... 27
Figure 1.11 Stream slope versus drainage area for six basins. ...................... 28
Figure 1.12 Drainage density versus drainage area and basin slope in the Alafia River
basin. ................. ................................... 30











Chapter 1


STREAM AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS



Robert E. Tighe




INTRODUCTION




This section applies techniques of geomorphic analyses to the Florida landscape, to study
relationships between geomorphic structures and water discharge. Since most analysis of stream and
drainage basin characteristics have been conducted in high relief landscapes, an analysis of the low relief
topography of Florida is warranted. Understanding the relationship between water discharge and
geomorphic structure may be useful for planning and design of human activities in a watershed perspective.
Such understanding may also be important in planning the reclamation of disturbed landscapes, so that
hydrologic function may be more readily restored.
A primary purpose in geomorphic analysis is to relate the structure of the landscape (stream
networks) to the forces (hydrology) that cause that structure (Kirkby 1976). Along all reaches of large
rivers and small streams an "approximate equilibrium" is produced between the channel and the discharge
(Leopold and Maddock 1953). Since the form of large rivers is replicated in all sizes of streams, it is
inferred that channels of all sizes function in much the same way (Leopold and Wolman 1957).
Stream channels continually adjust themselves to changes in discharge, both within the channel and
throughout the entire network of channels. The degree of adjustment is related to the magnitude and
frequency of discharges encountered.
Within-channel adjustments can occur with successive flow events of relatively minor extent. The
parameters affected are known collectively as the "hydraulic geometry" of the channel (Leopold and
Maddock 1953), and include the width, depth, and slope of the channel in relation to the quantity and
velocity of the water flowing through it Changes in these factors occur continuously, with the scour and
deposition of sediments related to high and low discharges. In addition, pools and riffles occur along the
course of a channel as alternating deep and shallow portions. These are the vertical adjustments a stream
makes in its course, whereas meandering is the lateral adjustment (Yang 1971b).
Changes in channel networks occur more gradually, and thus "the channel system...is a relatively
permanent characteristic of a drainage basin" (Langbein et al. 1947, p. 128). Wolman and Miller (1960)
showed that the pattern of river channels is related to a discharge approximating the bank-full stage--that
is, the flow which just fills a channel to the tops of its banks. This flow has been found by many










investigators to be approximately equal to the annual flood (e.g., Wolman and Leopold 1957, Brush 1961,
Dury 1973), although Williams (1978) found a range of 1-32 years for bank-full flow for 36 U.S. gaging
stations analyzed.
At the other extreme, Dr. W.C. Huber (personal communication) points out that Florida streams
frequently top their banks more than once per year. The differences between various streams may be
explained by the finding that "generally on streams of mild slope, the recurrence interval of bank-full stage
lies between 1 and 2 years" (Kilpatrick and Barnes 1964, p. E8). They suggest that recurrence interval
tends to be related to slope, increasing with steepening slope. This was also found by Williams (1978).
Finally, forces of more long-term nature--catastrophic events--are related to the floodplain of a
stream. These are the flood events which take place outside of the stream banks, and form the valley
through which a stream channel flows.




Geomorphology



Delineation of Florida Stream Channels

Delineation of streams by geomorphologists is usually based on a definition that leans heavily on
well-defined channels. Application of geomorphic techniques to the Florida landscape requires defining
precisely what constitutes a stream channel, and then refining identification of these channels on maps used
for analysis.
Perhaps the most important consideration in the definition of stream channels "is their functional
role in conducting surface runoff' (Chorley and Dale 1972, p. 152). Because of the low relief of the Florida
landscape, runoff of the high (approximately 52 in/year) rainfall is dampened, and stream incision often is
not great Many streams have very low gradients and sluggish flow, due to the flat terrain that typifies
Florida (Snell and Kenner 1974).
Qualitative and biological conditions of a stream are related to the physical conditions of the stream
(Smith et al. 1954). Cummins (1977, p. 305) showed that "biological communities change in a continuous,
predictable fashion from headwaters to mouth, along stream orders, as a function of the physical setting."
Thus, both the physical and biological aspects form a continuum over the length of a stream's flow
(Vannote et al. 1980).



Stream Network Classification

The concept of stream order, as generally referred to in geomorphic analyses, was originated by
Horton (1945) and later modified by Strahler (1952, 1957). The process of ordering stream networks is
begun at the uppermost reaches of stream channels, where unbranched tributaries are assigned the order 1.
The junction of two first order streams creates a stream of order 2, and any number of first order streams









may subsequently enter that stream without changing the order. This process continues to the mouth of the
network, with the general principle being that when any two streams of order "s" join, a stream of order
"s+1" is formed, and any streams of order 1 through "s" which subsequently enter this stream do not
increase the order (Figure 1.1a).
Shreve (1966, 1967) introduced the concept of "magnitude" (m). In this scheme all first order
streams are magnitude 1 (m=l), but the system is now additive. That is, the junction of two first magnitude
streams creates one of m=2, and all subsequent junctions increase magnitude accordingly. The general rule
is that the junction of two streams of magnitude "a" and "b" creates one of m=a+b (Figure 1. b).
In this scheme, a magnitude can be assigned to every unbranched segment (link) within a stream
network, where the magnitude of a link is equal to the total number of first order Horton/Strahler streams
tributary to that link. An order, on the other hand, is assigned to a segment of a stream channel, and a
given segment may be composed of any number of individual links. Any number of lower order streams
can enter one of a given order; this system is thus very sensitive to topologic arrangement, such that
cartographic error in the location of a first order stream can result in change of determined order.
A large range of values is often found for a studied parameter over a given order (Hughes and
Omernik 1983), even though the mean value may correlate well with order. Magnitude is more indicative
of the true topologic structure of a network, and thus should be more related to the hydrologic processes
which formed the network (Smart 1968).
Use of magnitude is not without its drawbacks, however. Drainage basins of more than a few
square miles begin to have large numbers of first order streams, and thus magnitudes become quite large.
Also, a larger range of magnitudes is encountered; thus, direct analysis of same-magnitude networks is
precluded except for very small networks.



Stream Lengths

A significant parameter of stream networks is the relation between main stream length and drainage
area, "because the empirical relation obtained is an expression of the basin shape" (Brush 1961, p. 156).
Hack (1957), Brush (1961), and Gray (1961) found stream length approximately related to area by

L = 1.4 A0.6, (1)

where L is stream length (mi) and A is drainage area (mi2). Strahler (1964) took this to mean that basins
tend to become longer and narrower as they increase in size, since "an exponent of 0.5 is required if
geometric similarity is to be perfectly preserved" (Strahler 1964, p. 446); that is, if the dimensional
relations (indices) are related between drainage basins of all sizes.















































Ca) Strahler's Stream Order


(b) Shreve's Stream Magnitude (M)


Comparison of stream classification systems for a drainage network with 9 first-order
streams.


1-4


Figure 1.1










Link lengths. Since a channel network is constructed of individually joined segments (links), "any
discussion of lengths of more complex channel segments, such as Strahler streams, should be based on a
model of link length distribution" (Smart 1968, p. 1004). Shreve (1969) suggests that exterior links are on
average approximately twice as long as interior links, and that the two types should be analyzed separately.
Measurement of exterior links is also less reliable than for interior links (Smart 1978), since delineation of
the former is questionable.
Smart (1981) found that the length of a given interior link is closely correlated to the magnitude
of the link that joins it downstream, increasing in length with junction with larger magnitude links. He
concluded that "the magnitude of link joined downstream in fact appears to be the most important topologic
indicator of link length" (Smart 1981, p. 79).
Abrahams and Campbell (1976) found exterior links also to increase in length with distance
downstream. They differentiated between exterior links which join other exterior links (source links), and
those which join links of greater magnitude (tributary-source links).



Drainage Density

A measure of the degree of dissection of a drainage basin by stream channels is the drainage
density, which Horton (1945) felt would be a simple tool for characterizing the degree of drainage
development within a basin. It is measured as the sum of all stream channels within a drainage network,
divided by the area of the basin:

Dd = Z/A (2)

where,

Dd: Drainage density (mi/mi2)
E : Sum of all stream channels in network (mi)
A : Drainage area (mi2)

Strahler (1964) reported drainage density values ranging from as low as 3 mi/mi2 or less, to more
than 1000 mi/mi2. In a study of the Kissimmee River Basin in central Florida, Heaney and Huber (1975)
found a wide variation in drainage density values, depending on both the scale of map used and on the
methodology employed in determining stream lengths. For the same basin, drainage density varied by as
much as five times between map scales (1:24,000 and 1:250,000) and over three times at the same scale
using different means of measuring lengths. They concluded that "one of the main sources of map error,
then, is the definition of stream length as compared to an associated aerial photograph" (Heaney and Huber
1975, p. A14).
Carlston (1963) found the square of drainage density to be related to the mean annual flood. He
theorized that "runoff and drainage density are genetically and predictably related to the transmissibility of
the underlying rock terrain" (Carlston 1963, p. Cl). He further stated that transmissibilityy of the terrain









appears to be the dominant factor in controlling the scale of drainage density and the magnitude of the mean
annual flood for basins up to 75 to 100 square miles in area" (Carlston 1963, p. C7).



Stream Slope

The slope of a stream channel is the vertical drop over a given length of channel traversed. Along
with the factors of hydraulic geometry within the channel, change of slope is one of the means by which
a stream adjusts itself to increased or decreased flow regimes. Slope is thus "one of the adjustable and
dependent parameters, being determined by mutual interaction with the other dependent factors" (Langbein
and Leopold 1966, p. 239).
Stream slope tends to decrease in the downstream direction (Leopold and Maddock 1953). This
can be readily seen from a longitudinal profile of a stream channel, which is a graph of elevation versus
distance along the channel. The longitudinal profile is general concave upwards, reflecting the decrease in
slope. An exception to this generality is sometimes found in small streams which enter very large streams.
In this case, the slope of the small stream may increase as it approaches its junction with the larger stream
(Hack 1975).



Channel Pattern

One of the primary ways in which a stream channel can alter its slope is by meandering within its
floodplain. "Meandering can be attributed to the step taken by nature to decrease the excess slope of the
channel by increasing the valley length through the development of a series of bends" (Nagabhushanaiah
1967, p. 43). The meandering of a stream channel--its sinuosity--is one of several channel patterns that a
stream may exhibit.

Sinuosity. Sinuosity is a dimensionless measure of the deviation of a linear parameter from a
straight line. In geomorphological study, this is related to a stream channel and/or its floodplain.
The primary sinuosity of a stream is the length of the entire channel (c) divided by the straight
distance (s) between source and mouth. As drainage area increases and a stream lengthens, its floodplain
may begin to meander as well. In this case a more accurate measure of the stream sinuosity is c divided
by the floodplain or valley length (v). The ratio v/s is then the floodplain sinuosity, and is equal to c/s
when the valley or floodplain is relatively straight.
A third level of sinuosity which occurs is that within a channel during low flows. This is the
meandering of flows less than that which can fill the low-water level of a channel and occurs in the bed
materials. This is a non-permanent feature of stream channels and changes with succeeding low-flows.
Langbein and Leopold (1966) showed that meanders are the rule rather than the exception along
stream channels, and that straight stretches of any length are unusual. It was shown previously that "as a
generalization ... reaches which are straight for distances exceeding ten times the channel width are rare"
(Leopold and Wolman 1957, p. 53).











Braided channels. A braided channel is one which splits into two or more separate channels for
some distance, and which later rejoin to a single channel downstream. This occurrence can range for a
length of a few meters around a sandbar in a small stream, to several miles around large islands in great
rivers.

Braiding of a stream channel has been shown to be just "one of the many patterns which can
maintain quasi-equilibrium among discharge, load and transporting ability" (Leopold and Wolman 1957, p.
39). Just as a stream meanders to varying degrees, changes width and depth, or creates riffles and pools,
so braiding is a means of adjusting to varying flow regimes. Braiding occurs primarily when a channel's
width exceeds that necessary for a given discharge (Yang 1971a), and also generally at greater slopes,
relative to the discharge at a given point along a stream channel (Leopold and Wolman 1957, Hynes 1970).











METHODS


Research for this study was conducted using a combination of map review and field surveys. The
primary maps used were U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute series topographic maps, at a scale
of 1:24,000. Detailed analysis of the morphologic indices measured was made on these maps. In addition,
USGS topographic maps at the scales of 1:250,000 and 1:100,000, and Southwest Florida Water
Management District (SWFWMD) aerial topographic maps at 1:2400 were used for supplementary data
collection. Field studies were designed to either check or augment map-derived data.




Study Areas



The major river basins of Florida which were studied, or are referred to in this report, are shown
on Figure 2. The study was concentrated primarily on streams of peninsular Florida, although some
panhandle streams were included. The Suwannee River, which may be considered the boundary or
transition between the two regions of the state, was one of the well studied streams, particularly in its upper
region just south of the Florida/Georgia border (Figure 1.2). Areas studied depended on the scale of map
used. At the scale of 1:250,000 nearly all major rivers of the peninsula were studied.
At the 1:24,000 scale, study was concentrated in six river basins, in three geographic regions of
the State. These were: the Suwannee River, in north central Florida; the Alafia, Little Manatee, Manatee,
and Peace rivers, in the central area of the Florida Peninsula; and Rocky Comfort Creek, a tributary to the
Ochlockonee River in the Florida Panhandle (Figure 1.2).




Stream Channel Delineation and Cartographic Interpretation



Blueline designation of stream channels on USGS maps has been shown to be inaccurate for
delineation and measurement of small streams (Miller 1953, Morisawa 1957). Therefore, prior to full
undertaking of this study a preliminary investigation was made as to proper designation of stream channels
on the USGS 1:24,000 scale topographic maps.
































1- St. Marys
2- Nassau
3- St. Johns
4- Kissimmeee
5- Peace
6- Myakka
7- Manatee
8- Little Manatee
9- Alafia
10- Hillsborough
11- Anclote
12- Pithlachascotee
13- Withlacoochee
14- Waccasassa
15- Suwannee
16- Sante Fe
17- Steinhatchee
18- Fenholloway
19- Econfina
20- Aucilla
21- St. Marks
22- Ochlockonee
23- Yellow
24- Blackwater




--- Drainage divides








Figure 1.2 Rivers of Florida studied in this report


0 50 100
miles










Several features of the topographic maps presented possibilities for the existence of stream
channels. First and most obvious were the bluelines, both solid and broken line, which depict perennial and
intermittent streams, respectively. Next were v-shaped, upstream contour-line crenulations, which have been
found by many investigators to indicate the presence of stream channels. And finally, there was a feature
that has not been previously described in the literature but, on past field studies by the author, has suggested
the possibility of being another strong indicator of stream channels. This last feature is a wetland symbol
which is referred to on the USGS index as "wooded marsh" and is called in this study the "wetland
symbol."
Besides its use for obvious swamp indications, the wetland symbol is often found along stream
channels, indicating wetland floodplains along these streams (Figure 1.3). But that symbol is also frequently
found in narrow bands between contour lines without a blueline for a channel; and this has suggested the
possibility that this symbol, found in the situation just described, may also be used to add stream channels
to the network.
In order to verify this assumption, as well as to check the accuracy of using the contour line
method for Florida streams, a field investigation was undertaken. A sample of possible channels delineated
by the two methods was selected for field inspection. A portion of the Alafia River basin, on the Keysville
topographic map (1:24,000), was chosen for investigation. Five examples each of the contour line and
wetland symbol delineations were checked for presence or absence of stream channels. In every case, a
well defined channel was found where the delineation suggested such. In addition, on all subsequent field
research throughout the state, whenever examples of these delineations were noted on topographic maps they
were checked in the field and, almost without exception, a channel was found where the delineation
suggested there would be one.
Although not a rigorous quantitative study, this simple field exercise led to the conclusion that both
contour and wetland symbol delineations were not only adequate, but important indicators of the stream
network. All analysis in this study therefore included these components of the drainage system.
In addition to the cartographic features relating to delineation of stream channels from maps, the
Florida landscape poses other difficulties for such delineations. In many areas there are often one or more
natural or man-made features which hinder straightforward analysis of the channel network. Natural
features include lakes, braided channels, extensive wetland area, and sinkholes. Man-made features are
those which alter natural drainage patterns, such as strip-mining, channelization, and urban development.
Each of these special cases is discussed below.

Lakes. The treatment of lakes within drainage networks is virtually non-existent in the literature,
although these features are prevalent in the Florida landscape. Shreve (1966, p. 20) points out that "most
workers seem to have avoided [such difficulties] by choosing to study networks without lakes or islands,
such as those normally associated with mature topography." For the most part, lakes were not a significant
feature of the areas studied. Nonetheless, a methodology was developed for including lakes in the network
analysis.
The Florida State Board of Conservation (1969) defines four types of lakes in Florida: those with
only inlet streamss, those with only an outlet stream, those with both inlet(s) and an outlet, and isolated
lakes. Since this research was concerned only with complete networks which drain to Florida's coast,


1-10







41*
4 .-7
,4, --


L"-_,F+._ "-' ..--+" .-o' +


rA.,_ 4-






..... ... .. . ... .. . ...
,--1 ,,,

















-IL-
AL-.
_,- -











.- -
4 4.. -......
-_ = ,-,'. ,
_4,, . -.
















., +- -- __...] 7

-. ,,- ..+ -- -
























- stream channels
-topographic contour lines
-e-- wetlands symbol





Figure 1.3 Portion of USGS Deep Creek quadrangle showing wetland symbol and broken line
segments as indicators of channel network.











isolated lakes and those with only inlets do not affect the network analysis directly, other than by removing
some area from the drainage basin. Only those lakes that occur within a drainage network are treated here.
Lakes with only one outlet were considered to be the source of that outlet stream, and thus had
little bearing on network analyses. The exception was that measurement of stream length was taken to the
shoreline opposite (upstream) from the outlet.
Lakes with multiple outlets--whether with or without inlets--are rare in nature (Mark and Goodchild
1982). No such lakes were encountered in the study areas.
Lakes with one inlet and one outlet were considered to be simply a widening of the stream channel,
and thus had no effect on network analysis. Stream length through such a lake was measured by staying
approximately centered between opposite shorelines, while measuring from outlet to inlet stream.
Outlet lakes with multiple inlets were treated in much the same manner as those with single inlets,
except that one inlet was chosen as the main channel. This generally provided little difficulty as the shape
of the drainage basin and orientation of the channel network usually determined the most reasonable path
to take. In the absence of an obvious choice of main channel, the inlet most directly opposite from the
outlet was chosen as the main channel.
The remaining inlets in a multiple-inlet lake were treated as tributaries to the main stream. The
lake itself was taken as being part of the stream channel, and thus all inlets were treated as if the lake was
a single channel.

Braided channels. For topological purposes, braided channels were counted as a single channel.
For stream length, a single channel was again assumed, with measurement made at the approximate
midpoint of the two or (rarely) more channels that made up the braid. Slope measurements were not made
within a braided reach.

Wetland areas. Because of the low topographic relief of the Florida landscape, there are vast areas
of marshes and swamps throughout the state. Many such areas form the headwaters of stream networks,
and often of more than one stream. Methodology relating to the division of a wetland into more than one
drainage basin is discussed in the section on drainage areas, below. This section deals with the relation of
wetlands to individual stream channels.
When large areas of marsh or swamp were encountered at stream headwaters, several criteria were
developed to determine if a stream channel should be designated or not. Where contour lines ceased to
indicate a possible channel, the source of the stream was deemed to be the last likely contour indentation.
In some instances, particularly in the Osceola National Forest area of the Suwannee River Basin, stream
channels were delineated in scattered pieces well into the headwaters of several basins (see Figure 1.3).
One likely explanation for this cartographic feature is that stream channels between such segments were not
visible to the photo interpreter and thus not included. Another is that defined flow channels do not exist
in those areas, and sheet flow is instead found. In either case, the upstream map segments were felt to be
an important part of the overall network and hydrology, and so channels were drawn in between such
segments using available contour lines and the wetland symbol.


1-12











Sinkholes and solution channels. The karst topography of Florida is responsible for many
irregularities in the usual delineation of channel networks and their drainage basins. Sinkholes often drain
large areas and thus cause the diversion of surface flow from larger basins, into direct contact with
groundwater.
In general, sinkholes may be treated as lake basins, either with no inlets or inlets only. However,
in some instances flow captured by sinkholes reemerges farther downstream, and may be affected in a
number of ways during its underground course. Increase in flow may occur due to additional groundwater
contribution, little change may occur, or loss of flow due to recharge to aquifers may occur. For example,
the Santa Fe River, a tributary to the Suwannee River (Figure 1.2), goes underground and emerges 3 miles
downstream at River Rise. During low flow conditions above the sink a substantial increase in flow has
been noted below the sink, while during high flows a decrease in flow generally occurs (Hunn and Slack
1983).
Isolated (non-contributing) sinkhole basins were not treated in this study, since the research dealt
with complete river networks. When such basins were encountered, their areas were excluded from the
determined area, as suggested by Bridges (1982).

Human disturbances. The primary artificial difficulties encountered in network delineation were
surface mining and drainage canals. The former eliminated large areas of landscape, while the latter
confused conditions regarding location and extent of stream channels.
Strip mines and related land uses are lumped together on the topographic maps with a purple
stippling designated as "strip mines." There are large areas of these symbols on maps covering the central
and northern mining districts. But while large areas of land have been disturbed by mining, original contour
lines are often left at least partially intact in many of the areas. There are also frequently patches of the
wetland symbol or pieces of original channels still shown on some maps to the point that, combined, these
occurrences have served to allow for the approximation of the original stream network existing prior to
mining. This technique was applied on a large scale on the Alafia River basin, whereby the entire network
was analyzed topologically. Other measurements were not made on those portions of the stream network
"recreated" in this way.
Drainage canals create an uncertainty as to whether the straight channel shown indicates an original
stream that has been "improved," or a channel constructed in originally smooth land. Drainage canals also
often broach drainage divides, diverting flow from one basin to another. Finally, drainage canals are often
found in a grid pattern, and it is questionable whether a small network or a single channel originally existed,
or whether there had been no stream at all.
The general procedure used was to count a drainage canal as a stream if there were any other
indications that it may at one time have been a natural stream that had been channelized, such as remnant
contour lines, or patches of wetland symbol.











Geomorphic Indices



This aspect of the study included the topologic classification of stream networks and the
measurement of basin length and the length and sinuosity of stream channels. A diagram showing the basic
parameters measured is given in Figure 1.4.



Stream Topology

Stream networks were first numbered using both Strahler orders and Shreve magnitudes. Since
the latter defines the total number of first order Strahler streams, very little extra effort was required to
obtain magnitude for each segment of a given network.



Drainage Boundaries

The surface area of land that does or may contribute to the flow at a given point on a stream is
the drainage basin of that point. Although each drop of water that falls on the land and ultimately does flow
past that point does not necessarily get there by surface flow, the basin is defined by the land that slopes
towards that point.
The line which defines the outermost points of the drainage basin is the basin boundary or divide.
The divide is determined by drawing a line on topographic maps, following perpendicular to the direction
of land contour lines. Ideally, the basin divide is drawn by beginning on one side of the mouth of a stream
and following upslope until the highest elevation is reached. The line then continues downslope until the
opposite side of the mouth is reached. In actuality the ideal basin is rarely found. Particularly in the
headwaters of most streams the land is flat and often marshy, and the boundary between two adjacent
streams cannot be clearly defined. Occasionally small hills (enclosed contour lines) are scattered throughout
the headwater areas. These are used to guide delineation. Otherwise, the general procedure is to stay
approximately equidistant between like-valued contour lines which are the upper elevations of adjoining
basins.
Some drainage basins were found on preexisting maps. Particularly, the drainage basins of the
large rivers of Florida and major subbasins have been determined as State Hydrologic Units (Kenner et al.
1967, USGS 1975). Also, areas which drain to USGS stream and lake gages are delineated on Drainage
Basin maps, developed from USGS 1:24,000 topographic maps, and many of these were obtained for this
study. In many cases these were used as guides for delineating smaller basins, and generally served as the
primary boundaries between adjoining drainage basins. Since gaging stations are rarely located at the
mouths of streams, basins for gaged streams were completed to their mouths, using the Drainage Basin map
as a preliminary starting point.











Drainage divide
A- mouth (outlet) of stream/basin

B- source of stream
C- summit of basin

A- B: stream channel (mi)
A -- ---- C
B C A--B: straight length (mi)
A B/A---B : sinuosity

A--C: basin length (mi)

plan view


C-A: relief (ft.)

C C-A/A---C: basin slope (ft/mi)

L d B-A/A~-B: stream slope (ft./mi)
Longitudinal 0
profile B Note: Although technically lengths
A_ _,_, ,. BA-B and A-C are longer when
Distance upstream (mi) measured in cross-section than in

cross section plan view, the difference is so
minor as to make the latter an
acceptable measure for both
lengths and slopes.


S- stream link

E E exterior (source) link, equivalent
E I to 1st order stream

E I interior link

I of E/Area = Fm; stream frequency

(magnitude)

of E + I/A = Fl: stream frequency
/Area
(link)

E lengths of all E +1Area = Dd; drainage

density






Figure 1.4 Basic geomorphic parameters studied.


1-15













Basin Area (A: mi2)


Drainage areas for State Hydrologic Units are given by Kenner et al. (1967), and areas for USGS
gaged basins are given in Foose (1980) and in Water Resources Data reports, published annually by the
USGS. Additional areas were given by Florida State Board of Conservation (1966). Areas for basins
delineated in this research were determined using a polar compensating planimeter.



Basin Topology

The order or magnitude of a drainage basin has the same value of the entire network which drains
that basin. This applies also to drainage areas of gaging stations, and exemplifies one of the advantages
of magnitude over Horton/Strahler order. Order S requires a complete network, and rarely if ever
corresponds to the location of a gaging station. Magnitude can be determined for any segment of a stream
network, and thus may be found for any gage. This allows for direct comparisons of discharge
measurements, as well as areas and magnitudes of basins.



Stream Length (Ls: mi)

Stream lengths were measured with a chart wheel, from mouth to uppermost point of definable
channel. This generally may be taken as the highest contour line with an upslope indentation sufficient to
be considered as part of the channel. In cases where a blueline shown on the topographic map was used
and the next contour line showed no acceptable indentation, then the end of the marked channel was taken
as the limit of upstream measurement.
In the many cases where a channel was considered to exist based on contour line crenulations or
wetland symbol, the best estimate of the channel was taken as following the direction of the bordering
contour lines; that is, the channel was assumed to be midway between the lines. Although this possibly
eliminated some existing stream meandering, this method was taken as the only way to maintain consistency
in measurement.

Link lengths. Channels measured using the above methodology were comparable to Horton
streams. Strahler segments were not measured. Streams of magnitude m=l were equivalent to exterior
links. No attempt was made to measure individual interior links, although estimation of lengths of interior
links of low magnitude values was made by averaging values of streams of increasing magnitude, and
finding the difference in value between lengths of successive magnitudes.


1-16










Stream Slope (S,: ft/mi)


The slope (or gradient) of a stream channel is the vertical fall divided by the length of the channel.
These were measured by subtracting the elevation (in feet above mean sea level) of the mouth of a channel
from the elevation of the most upstream point, and dividing by the length (in miles). Although many
investigators report slopes as dimensionless ratios, the low relief of the Florida landscape allowed for using
feet per mile as a common measure. For example, the Peace River has an average slope of 1 ft/mi, which
is equivalent to a gradient of 0.0002. The former type of number seems to be more reasonable to deal with.
The elevations of sources were determined by the last contour line touched by the designated
channel, or, where a channel did not fall exactly on a contour line, by taking the proportionate elevation
between contour lines. Since the primary maps used were 1:24,000 quads and the majority of these have
five-foot contour intervals, the accuracy of source elevation determinations is about + 2 feet
Mouth elevations were taken proportionate to the location of point of confluence between up- and
downstream contour lines of larger streams, or, where two similar-sized streams joined, as the proportionate
distance between the contour line downstream from the confluence and the next upstream contour line on
the stream being measured. Accuracy was probably similar to that of source elevations.



Basin Length (L,: mi)

Basin lengths were measured along the basin axis (Figure 1.4), which was determined as a straight
line between the mouth and the summit of the basin. The summit was generally taken as the point furthest
from the mouth, although this did not always coincide with the highest point on the divide. For basins of
irregular configuration, the axis was approximated through the center of the basin to the summit.



Basin Slope (S,: ft/mi)

Basin slope refers to the average land slope of a drainage basin. Basin slopes were determined by
dividing the elevation difference (relief) between the mouth and the summit by the horizontal distance
between these two points. Many basins studied display the traditional pear shape, or are circular or
elongated. Basins displaying these characteristics were simply measured by placing a ruler over the longest
possible line from mouth to divide. This did not always result in the greatest elevational difference, but
unless the highest elevation was very near the extreme point, the lower value was used.
For basins which were irregularly shaped, such that a straight line from mouth to headwaters would
pass outside the basin at some point, a different method was used. In these cases the basin axis was
determined by choosing a point within the basin which would allow two lines to be drawn most nearly
centered in the basin, connecting mouth and summit.











Sinuosity (SI)


The sinuosity (or meandering) of a stream channel--the degree to which a channel varies from the
shortest possible distance it could take--was measured by dividing stream length by the straight-line distance
between the channel's source and mouth. The accuracy of this measure is only as good as the accuracy of
channel delineation. Thus, assuming that blueline channels are drawn on topographic maps only when the
channel could be seen from aerial photography, sinuosity was determined only for those channels found on
the quad maps.
For the majority of streams studied, only the sinuosity for an entire channel was measured. For
the large rivers--generally those that require more than one topographic map to measure--sinuosity was
measured in segments as well as overall, to determine if changes in sinuosity correspond to some measure
of change along a stream's course. Two approaches were taken to segmental measuring. In the first,
straight distance was measured between each successive contour crossing by a channel, in order to directly
compare sinuosity to slope. In the second, a constant length--either of channel or straight distance--was
used to determine where sinuosity values were obtained.
One basic rule was adhered to in the measurement of sinuosity: a requirement that the straight line
between stream points must cross the stream channel at least once. Further, an attempt was made to keep
sinuosity measurements along relatively straight reaches of floodplain, in order to keep results specific to
the stream channel. Sinuosity of long streams, where the basin is many miles long, may reflect meandering
of both the channel and the floodplain. In order to compare the two levels of sinuosity for long streams,
the sinuosity was computed twice, as stream length divided by floodplain length (c/v), and divided by
straight length (c/s). Average SI was the average of segmental values, reflecting the meandering of a
channel within its floodplain. This value should be comparable to c/s for streams with relatively straight
floodplains.



Drainage Density (D,: mi/mi2)

Since the location of many channels in this study was postulated based on the methodology
described earlier, drainage density values would be expected to be greater than using just the bluelines found
on topographic maps. Due to this and to the amount of work involved in obtaining total lengths of all
streams, only a few sample basins were measured for this parameter. These were the tributaries to the
South Prong of the Alafia River (see Figure 1.2). Results of this portion of the study may determine
whether this parameter is useful enough to warrant its measure in future studies.
For comparative purposes, expected drainage density was approximated using average link lengths,
as determined in the stream length portion of this study, and the results of the topologic investigation.
Using average magnitude for a basin of a given size, the links in that basin are then known. The sum of
the average length of exterior plus interior links then gives expected length of the total network.











Field Studies



Field measurements of stream slope and sinuosity were made to test the accuracy of collecting
these data from topographic maps. Nineteen segments from 10 different streams were studied, with
segments ranging in length from 68 to 400 m. Approximate locations of the study streams are shown in
Figure 1.5.
Following the field measurements, the stream segments were located on the corresponding USGS
1:24,000 topographic maps, and map slope and sinuosity were determined. Comparison between the two
methods was made to determine the accuracy of maps for deriving these data.



Sinuousity

Stream sinuosity was measured in several ways. For each method a fiberglass measuring tape was
laid out in the center of the stream channel, using stakes or branches to hold its position. This was
generally done in 100-meter increments, with the beginning and end points of each segment marked off with
poles. This measurement resulted in the stream length.
Measurement of the straight-line distance for sinuosity was generally made by stretching the tape
out directly between the two endpoints. When the presence of dense stands of vegetation made this method
difficult, the built-in compass of the survey level was used to determine the angle between the endpoints
from a point away from the stream channel. Distance from the level to both endpoints was then measured
using the cross-hairs on the eyepiece of the level and the stadia rod. The final side of the triangle (the
straight line for sinuosity) was then determined by triangulation.
Another method was developed that not only provided sinuousity measurement, but also allowed
for reproduction of the channel configuration. In this method the stream was walked and, at each turn in
the channel, the distance on the tape was hoted and the compass reading to the next turn was measured.
The numbers derived in this way were plotted out on graph paper using a protractor and engineer's scale
to reproduce the channel configuration. Straight distance between the endpoints could then be measured
using the scale. This method was found to be highly accurate by making some in-field straight line
measurements and comparing these to the plotted data.



Stream Slope

Elevations for the determination of slope were measured using a David White/Path S-302-C6 Auto
Level mounted on a tripod and a stadia rod. For some streams, elevations were read only at the end points
of the marked segments, while for others smaller intervals were also measured. Depending on flow
conditions at the time of measurement, either stream bed slope alone (low- or no-flow) or both bed and
water surface slopes were determined.


1-19


































Study Sites


1- Alderman Creek

2- Blues Creek

3- Coon's Bay Branch
4- Gilshey Branch

5- Jameson Creek

6- Little Manatee River
7- Patrick Creek

8- Unnamed A

9- Unnamed B

10- Unnamed C


0 50 100
miles


b.


Figure 1.5 Locations of study areas for field measurements.


1-20












RESULTS


Geomorphic Indices



Results of geomorphic measurements from 1:24,000 scale maps are presented in Tables Al through
A6 in the Appendix 1. Analysis of these data are described below.



Stream Topology

The first portion of topologic analysis centered on examining stream data in relation to Hortonian
principles, the "laws of drainage composition." Stream order is plotted versus number of first order streams,
mean area, and mean length for the Alafia, Little Manatee, and Suwannee rivers in Figure 1.6. Only a
portion of the basins within these stream networks were measured for the additional geomorphic data.
Therefore, area and length data presented in Figure 1.6 represent the mean values for samples of the total
populations of possible streams. Mean bifurcation ratios for the Alafia, Little Manatee and Suwannee rivers
are 4.0, 4.7, and 3.9, respectively.
Data for each of the six river basins studies were analyzed to determine most significant
relationships that could be used as indices of basin organization. Magnitude is correlated to drainage area
in Figure 1.7. Drainage area is presented arithmetically, and only basins less than or equal to 20 square
miles are shown, both for clarity and to remove bias of regression inherent in having a few extreme outlying
points. Of the total 352 basins measured, only 35 were greater than 20 mi2, ranging up to the 420 mi2
Alafia River Basin.
The Alafia, Little Manatee, and Manatee river basins show good correlation between magnitude
and area, and similar regression lines. Slopes of the regression lines for those three basins are 0.5, 0.4 and
0.4, respectively, indicating a mean of two first order (2m) streams for each square mile of drainage basin
(2m/mi2) in the Alafia basin, and 2.5 m/mi2 in the Little Manatee and Manatee basins. The Peace and
Suwannee basins show poor correlation and a more reduced regression line. Both show a relation of
approximately 4 or 5 m per square mile of drainage area. Rocky Comfort Creek is moderately-well
correlated (r2=0.735), and shows the effects of the higher relief of the Florida Panhandle. The regression
slope of 0.12 indicates a topology of approximately 8.5 m/mi2.













Alafia River


2- +
-J









0
< 1

2 (0-1



1 2 3 4 5 6





Little Manatee River

E +



C2 +







--I
E 1 O





0
--1













E 0- 0
< *C
_i



0
-1~
1 2 3 4 5 6
Stream 9rd.er s)


Magnitude (M) O Stream Length (L) + Drainage Area (A)




Figure 1.6 Horton plots of stream numbers, areas and lengths.













Alafia River
10-





"






o 10 20






Little Manatee
10*


















5- *
*

























,0:.
0 10 20





Little Manatee River
10-

*













5












00
** *



0 10 20





Manatee River
10'---------





5


*. *
3*
0-


10
Stream magnitude


20


Peace River
10
*

*
*
*
5-


..
*1 X : : J. :


U 10 20





Rocky Comfort Creek
10





5


*



0 10 2C





Suwannee River
" 1 ,-


0


Lr- 0


Drainage areas versus magnitude for six basins.



1-23


0 0 0
0 0
0


10
Stream magnitude


Figure 1.7


I


*












Alafia River
2



1 -99 660
geCO


o- to



-2 -1 0 2




Little Manatee
2

0 0
1



1*
0-

-2 -1 0 1 2




Manatee River
2-





o
0 = p


I
-1 .- i ..,.-


-2 -1


0 1 2


log [Drainage area (mi2)]


Peace River
2


*
1- I **













Rocky Comfort Creek
2



1- *
4,

0-

-. *

-2 -1 0 1 2





Suwannee River
2







-2 0 1 2
log [Drainage area mi2
*
1







-2 -1 0 1 2

log [Drainage area (mi2}]


Basin length versus drainage area for six basins.


Figure 1.8












Basin Length


Correlations between the area and length of drainage basins are given in Figure 1.8. Regression
equations for each of the six basins show the exponents to be 0.50. Basin area is thus directly related to
the square of the basin axis (length), indicating the geometric similarity expected by Strahler (1964). Thus,
although various shapes may be found among basins, the length of any given basin varies little from a
simple linear-square relationship.



Stream Length

Main stream. Stream lengths correlate well (Figure 1.9) and, like basin lengths, are consistent
throughout the six basins, although the area exponents are all around 0.60. Stream length is thus related
to area by 3/5 power, as found in previous studies in various geographic locations.

Links. Average length of magnitude 1 (first order) streams was found to be approximately 0.6
miles. The increase between successive segments of stream channels averaged approximately 0.3 miles;
thus, exterior links are, on average, twice as long as interior links, at least in small networks.



Basin and Stream Slopes

Basin slopes vary from 1/3 power to nearly square root (-0.32 to -0.46, Figure 1.10), but correlation
is still very high. Stream slope exponents range from -0.40 to -0.50 (Figure 1.11). The similar exponents
among the basins indicates that there is a standard increase (or decrease) in the parameter with increasing
area, regardless of geographic location.



Sinuousity

Overall, sinuosity values of individual reaches were found to vary little, when taken over the entire
course of a stream. From source to mouth, sinuosity for streams which could be accurately measured from
the topographic maps was around 1.40. Since such little variation was found, sinuosity of just the stream
itself would seem to have little bearing on the increase of stream lengths discussed earlier. However,
floodplain sinuosity, when combined with that of the channel, might provide the increase required by the
0.6 exponent in the stream length/area equation. A drastic example of this situation is found in the
Suwannee River, where both channel and floodplain sinuosity values were 1.48. The combined sinuosity
of the Suwannee River is thus 2.2, providing an explanation of increased length in a very large (10,000 mi2)
drainage basin.


1-25












Alafia River
2



1 .0



0-

*

-2 -1 0 1 2




Little Manatee
2

**
1- **


~0.



-2
-2 -1 0 1 2


Manatee River


log [Drainage area (mi2)]


Peace River
2*


1 o o




-1
: b *




-2 -1 0 1 2





Rocky Comfort Creek
2




0-*


01 l
.1

-2 -1 0 1 2




Suwannee River
2


1 *
*. .
0..* *




-1
-2 -1 0 1 2
log [Drainage area (mi2)


Stream length versus drainage area for six basins.


1-26


Figure 1.9












Alafia River
3


2



1




-2 -1 0 1 2




Little Manatee
3



2- *



1 *** **
*


0--
-2 -1 0 1 2




Manatee River
3


2-

1 . 0


**



-2 -1 1 2
log [Drainage area (mi233


Peace River
3




of


1 0














2-
,, ,**..













-2 -1 0 1 2




Rocky Comfort Creek
3












2
0
1-



o0* ii I* -
-2 -1 0 1 2




Suwannee River




2








-2 -1 0 1 2
log CDrainage area Cmi23l


Figure 1.10 Basin slope versus drainage area for six basins.












Alafia River




2-
A *of8


1- o* *r I
1



0-
-2 -1 0 1 2




Little Manatee
3



2- *




-2 -1 0 1 2








Manatee River
3-


I -1 i 1 2
.2 -1 0 1 2


log [Drainage area (mi2)]


Peace River


2.
00i
a


O ,


-2 -1 0 1 2




Rocky Comfort Creek
3



2
0 .0.,*. .
*





-2 -1 0 1 2





Suwannee River
3



2-


*
0-*
0 00
04


-1 0 1


2


log [Drainage area (mi2)]


Figure 1.11 Stream slope versus drainage area for six basins.


* 1


.00
*











Sinuosity measurements for small streams are precarious at best when measured from maps.
Results and discussion of these measurements are presented in the section on field measurements.



Drainage Density

Drainage density values for the Alafia River are shown in Figure 1.12 (plotted against area and
basin slope). Particularly for small basins (<1 mi2) there is little, if any, correlation with area. A clearer
relation is found between Dd and basin slope, the former increasing with increasing slope. This could be
expected, since with increasing slope there should be a greater tendency for stream channels to carve the
landscape, thus requiring a smaller area of drainage basin to support a unit length of channel. Dd values
ranged from 1.1 to 5.0 mi/mi2.




Field Studies



While all measured segments had a map sinuosity of around 1.0, field sinuosity values ranged from
1.08 to 2.50. The former is a small seepage stream in north central Florida, which is not indicated by any
feature on the topographic map. The latter is for the last 100 m of a tributary to the upper portion of the
Peace River.
The data thus presented seem to verify that map measurements of small streams are highly
inaccurate, so that field measurements are required when studying such streams. There appears to be no
relation between map- and field-collected data for these streams, nor is there a common ratio or error by
which map numbers can be adjusted to reflect the actual configuration of small streams. When small
streams are included as the upper portions of larger streams, however, it should have little effect on overall
values of length, slope and sinuosity.
















a)


5-



4-


#*
3-

*

2- *
2 0* 0 *

0 0
1-



n .. I -- _ I I


5 10 15 20

Drainage area Cmi2)


b)


5-



4-



3- *
*


2- *
0 0 .

*
1-


0 i 0 *.

0 20 40 60 80 10

Basin slope (ft/mi)




Drainage density versus drainage area and basin slope in the Alafia River basin.



1-30


0


Figure 1.12












DISCUSSION


Results of the geomorphic analysis of Florida stream networks has shown a consistency with
studies in other geographic locations, with differences related to the low topographic relief of most of the
state. This is further accentuated by the linear and areal similarities found among all the basins studied,
while relief differences were found between the peninsular and panhandle streams studied.
Florida streams, as do all streams, form in response to the discharge they receive. Although
different types of streams form in varying landscape situations (e.g., silt-bottomed streams in extremely flat,
poorly drained terrain), they all conform to geomorphic expectations. Only the mathematical expressions
of their forms are different.
There is a strong correlation between stream magnitude and most stream and basin indices,
although there is generally substantial scatter of the plotted points in the lower ranges of the graphs. This
suggests several possible criteria governing the formation and maintenance of stream channels. The first
is that there is probably a minimum area necessary for the formation of a stream channel. This area is
related to the relief, and possibly the lithology, of the landscape.
There is also a large maximum area--if one exists at all--before a second stream channel must
necessarily form. And thus wide ranges are found for the areas of first order/magnitude streams. For high
relief areas, Rocky Comfort Creek has a range of from just a few acres (<0.01 mi2) to 0.2 square miles for
its m=l streams. In the peninsular region, the range is from about 0.02 to 0.8 mi2.
Stream meandering tends to increase a channel's length. Mean sinuosity was generally found to
be a constant, when measured over the entire length of a stream channel, but not including the effect of
floodplain meandering. Inclusion of the latter increases stream length relative to the straight distance
between source and mouth, and is more pronounced as basin area increases. It may therefore be supposed
that the combined effects of stream and floodplain sinuosity serve to maintain the increase of length
suggested by the larger exponent in the regression equations.



Potential Applications

A primary impetus in undertaking this research was to determine indices of landscape structure,
for use in enhancing the reclamation of land mined for phosphate in Florida. In recent years, a greater
demand has arisen from the mining industry to access reserves which underlie stream channels; therefore,
understanding the structure of stream networks may provide a means of restoring disturbed channels in a
hydrologically appropriate manner.
Generally, reclamation has had little focus on restoring the original hydrologic functioning of the
landscape. In part, this is due to the removal of large areas of land for storage of clay wastes (settling
ponds). However, these ponds, raised as they are above the surrounding landscape by earthen berms, might
be utilized as headwaters for small streams.











Simply restructuring a stream channel as it existed prior to mining takes into account neither the
post-mining landscape, nor the soil types. After mining, the overburden soils which characterize the
landscape have a greater clay content than previously existed, and may therefore be less permeable to
downward seepage of rainwater. More water may therefore become surface runoff if land areas are
connected to streams, while less groundwater may recharge streamflow if large areas are designed as
isolated lakes, ponds, or wetlands. A mix between these two alternatives should first be reached prior to
landscape design.
In addition, the relief of the landscape may not be similar to pre-mining conditions. Stream
topology is strongly related to the relief of the landscape, and so the number of first order streams needed
to drain a given area will depend on the average basin slope encountered. Mild slopes will be related to
original topology, while steeper slopes may require networks similar to those found in the panhandle study
area (Rocky Comfort Creek).
A stream channel will adjust itself as necessary to the hydrologic conditions presented to it. If the
groundwork is laid for the appropriate channel or network, than the stream will respond to the flows
provided, regardless of the detail that is built by reclamation engineers. Sufficient source channels, with
appropriate slope, length and initial sinuosity, should more than adequately enhance the formation of the
network that would eventually occur anyway. The parameters provided here may simply enable that
network to stabilize--to reach "quasi-equilibrium"--with less downstream effects than might otherwise occur.


1-32












LITERATURE CITED


Abrahams, A. D. and R. N. Campbell. 1976. Source and tributary-source link lengths in natural channel
networks. Geological Society of America Bulletin 87:1016-1020.

Bridges, W. C. 1982. Techniques for estimating magnitude and frequency of floods on natural-flow
streams in Florida. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 82-4012. 45 pp.

Brush, L. M., Jr. 1961. Drainage basins, channels, and flow characteristics of selected streams in central
Pennsylvania. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 282-F. 38 pp.

Carlston, C. W. 1963. Drainage density and streamflow. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 422-
C. 8p.

Chorley, R. J. and P. F. Dale. 1972. Cartographic problems in stream channel delineation. Cartography
7:150-162.

Cummins, K. W. 1977. From headwater streams to rivers. American Biology Teacher 39:305-312.

Dury, G. H. 1973. Magnitude-frequency analysis and channel morphometry. Pp. 91-122 i M. Morisawa
(ed.). Fluvial Geomorphology. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Geomorphology Symposia
Series, Binghampton, NY.

Florida State Board of Conservation. 1966. Gazetteer of Florida streams. Division of Water Resources
and Conservation. Tallahassee. 88 pp.

Florida State Board of Conservation. 1969. Florida lakes, Part 3, Gazetteer. Division of Water Resources
and Conservation. Tallahassee.

Foose, D. W. 1980. Drainage areas of selected surface-water sites in Florida. U.S. Geological Survey
Open-File Report 80-957. 83 pp.

Gray, D. M. 1961. Interrelationships of watershed characteristics. Journal of Geophysical Research
66(4): 1215-1223.

Hack, J. T. 1957. Studies of longitudinal stream profiles in Virginia and Maryland. U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper 294-B. 97 pp.

Hack, J. T. 1975. Dynamic equilibrium and landscape evolution. Pp. 87-102 in W.N. Melhorn and R.C.
Flemal (eds.). Theories of Landform Development. George Allen and Unwin, Ltd.:London. 306
pp.

Heaney, J. P. and W. C. Huber. 1975. Environmental resources management studies in the Kissimmee
River basin. Final report to the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District Department
of Environmental and Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville. 301 pp.

Horton, R. E. 1945. Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins: hydrophysical approach
to quantitative morphology. Geological Society of America Bulletin 56:275-370.


1-33










Hughes, R. M. and J. M. Omernik. 1983. An alternative for characterizing stream size. Pp. 87-101 i T.
D. Fontaine II and S. M. Bartell (eds.). Dynamics of Lotic Ecosystems. Ann Arbor Science. 494
pp.

Hunn, J. D. and L. J. Slack. 1983. Water resources of the Santa Fe river basin, Florida. U.S. Geological
Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 83-4075. Tallahassee. 105 pp.

Hynes, H. B. N. 1970. The Ecology of Running Waters. University of Toronto Press: Toronto. 555 pp.

Kenner, W. E., R. W. Pride and C. S. Conover. 1967. Drainage basins in Florida. U.S. Geological Survey
Map Series No. 28. Tallahassee.

Kilpatrick, F. A. and H. H. Barnes, Jr. 1964. Channel geometry of Piedmont streams as related to
frequency of floods. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 422-E. 10 pp.

Kirkby, M. J. 1976. Tests of the random network model, and its application to basin hydrology. Earth
Surface Processes 1:197-212.

Langbein, W. B. and L. B. Leopold. 1966. River meanders: theory of minimum variance. U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper
422-H.

Langbein, W. B. and others. 1947. Topographic characteristics of drainage basins. U.S. Geological Survey
Water-Supply Paper 968-C. 31 pp.

Leopold, L. B. and T. Maddock, Jr. 1953. The hydraulic geometry of stream channels and some
physiographic implications. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 252. 57 pp.

Leopold, L. B. and M. G. Wolman. 1957. River channel patterns: braided, meandering, and straight U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 282-B. 85 pp.

Mark, D. M. and M. F. Goodchild. 1982. Topologic model for drainage network with lakes. Water
Resources Research 18(2):275-280.

Miller, V. C. 1953. A quantitative geomorphic study of drainage basin characteristics in the Clinch
Mountain area, Virginia and Tennessee. Columbia University, Office of Naval Research, Technical
Report No. 3. New York.

Morisawa, M. 1957. Accuracy of determination of stream lengths from topographic maps. Transactions
of the American Geophysicists Union 38(1):86-88.

Nagabhushanaiah, H. S. 1967. Meandering of rivers. Bulletin of the International Association of
Hydrologists 12(1):28-43.

Shreve, R. L. 1966. Statistical law of stream numbers. Journal of Geology 74(1):17-37.

Shreve, R. L. 1967. Infinite topologically random channel networks. Journal of Geology 75:178-186.

Shreve, R. L. 1969. Stream lengths and basin areas in topologically random networks. Journal of Geology
77:397-414.










Smart, J. S. 1968. Statistical properties of stream length. Water Resources Research 4(5):1001-1014.

Smart, J. S. 1978. The analysis of drainage network composition. Earth Surface Processes 3:129-170.

Smart, J. S. 1981. Link lengths and channel network topology. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
6:77-79.

Smith, D. B., J. W. Wakefield, H. A. Bevis and E. B. Phelps. 1954. Stream sanitation in Florida. Florida
Engineering Series No. 1. College of Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville. 149 pp.

Strahler, A. N. 1952. Hypsometric (area-altitude) analysis of erosional topography. Bulletin of the
Geological Society of America 63:1117-1142.

Strahler, A. N. 1957. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Transactions of the American
Geophysicists Union 38:913-920.

Strahler, A. N. 1964. Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks. Pp. 4-39 -
4-76 in V.T. Chow (ed.). Handbook of Applied Hydrology. McGraw-Hill:NY.

U.S. Geological Survey. 1975. State of Florida, Hydrologic unit map 1974. Reston, VA.

Vannote, R. L., G. W. Minshall, K. W. Cummins, J. R. Sedell and C. E. Cushing. 1980. The river
continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:370-377.

Williams, G. P. 1978. Bank-full discharge of rivers. Water Resources Research 14(6):1141-1154.

Wolman, M. G. and L. B. Leopold. 1957. River floodplains: some observations on their formation. U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 282-C. 24 pp.

Wolman, M. G. and J. P. Miller. 1960. Magnitude and frequency of forces in geomorphic processes.
Journal of Geology 68:54-74.

Yang, C. T. 1971a. Potential energy and stream morphology. Water Resources Research 7(2):311-322.

Yang, C. T. 1971b. Formation of riffles and pools. Water Resources Research 7(6):1567-1574.


1-35




r




















Chapter 2
DRAINAGE BASINS AND REGIONAL
LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATIONS
by Mona F. Sullivan










TABLE OF CONTENTS



DRAINAGE BASINS AND REGIONAL LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATIONS ................. 1
INTRODUCTION ........................... ........................ 1
Study A areas ................................................. 1
M ETH O D S ........................................................ 5
Production of Drainage Basin Maps ................................. 5
Determination of Headwater/Channelway Boundaries .............. 5
Wetland Mapping and Classification .......................... 5
Measurement of Areas .................................... 6
Other Physical Characteristics ..................................... 8
Indices of Organization ......................................... 8
Statistical Analyses ............................................ 8
Area-Slope Relationships Within Basin Zones ................... 8
Area-Slope Relationships Within Basins ....................... 9
Significance of Basin Order to Basin and Basin Zone Relationships .... 9
Significance of Basin Size to Basin and Basin Zone Relationships ..... 9
Significance of Geographic Locale to Basin and Basin Zone
Relationships .................................... 9
RESU LTS ....................................................... 10
Area-Slope Relationships Within Basin Zones .................. ..... 10
Area-Slope Relationships Within Basins ............................. 11
Significance of Basin Order to Basin and Basin Zone Relationships ......... 11
Significance of Basin Size to Basin and Basin Zone Relationships .......... 16
Significance of Geographic Locale to Basin and Basin Zone Relationships ..... 16
W etland Frequency ..................................... 19
Representative Basins ................................... 19
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................... 32
Significance of Basin Order, Size, and Geographic Locale to Basin Zone
Relationships ......................................... 32
Significance of Basin Order, Size, and Geographic Locale to Basin
Relationships ......................................... 32
Conclusions ................................................ 35
LITERATURE CITED ............................................... 36










LIST OF FIGURES


Figure 2.1 Determination of headwater/channelway zone boundary: (a) first-order basins,
(b) basins of second-order or greater................................. 2
Figure 2.2 Location of study areas. ......................................... 3
Figure 2.3 Sample work map.............................................. 7
Figure 2.4 Changes in upland/wetland area ratio with changes in slope: (a) headwater
zones, (b) channelway zones. .................................... 12
Figure 2.5 Changes in logarithm of wetland ar with changes in slope: (a) headwater zones,
(b) channelway zones. ......................................... 13
Figure 2.6 Changes in the logarithm of basin wetland area with changes in basin slope. ... 14
Figure 2.7 Changes in the logarithm of basin wetland area with changes in basin slope by
basin size-class: (a) basins 10.1-100.0 ha, (b) basins 100.1-1000.0 ha, (c) basins
1000.1-10,000.0 ha, (d) basins 10,000.1-100,000.0 ha. .................... 17
Figure 2.8 Changes in wetland frequency with changes in wetland size-class. .......... 25
Figure 2.9 Changes in percent of total area with changes in wetland size-class. ......... 26
Figure 2.10 Changes in percent of total wetland area with changes in wetland size-class. ... 27
Figure 2.11 Representative drainage basins of north Florida: (a) 10.1-100.0 ha basin size-
class, (b) 100.1-1000.0 ha basin size-class. ........................... 28
Figure 2.12 Representative drainage basins of north Florida: (a) 1000.1-10,000.0 ha basin
size-class, (b) 10,000.1-100,000 ha basin size-class. ................... .. 29
Figure 2.13 Representative drainage basins of central Florida: (a) 10.1-100.0 ha basin size-
class, (b) 100.1-1000.0 ha basin size-class, (c) 1000.1-10,000.0 ha basin size-
class. ................ . ................. .. .. ......... 30
Figure 2.14 Representative drainage basins of central Florida: 10,000.1-100,000.0 ha basin
size-class................................................... 31
Figure 2.15 Changes in basin area with changes in order number. .................... 33
Figure 2.16 Changes in basin slope with changes in basin area ..................... 34


I ~












LIST OF TABLES


Table 2.1 Median values for variables exhibiting significant differences between basin
orders. .................................................... 15
Table 2.2 Mean values for basin variables by basin size-class for all basins ........... 18
Table 2.3 Median values for basin variables exhibiting significant differences between
geographic locales. ............................................ 20
Table 2.4 Mean values for basin variables by basin size-class for north Florida basins ... 21
Table 2.5 Mean values for basin variables by basin size-class for central Florida basins. .. 22
Table 2.6 Mean values for zone variables in north Florida ....................... 23
Table 2.7 Mean values for zone variables in central Florida ....................... 24










Chapter 2


DRAINAGE BASINS AND

REGIONAL LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATIONS



Mona F. Sullivan




INTRODUCTION




While much is known about general properties of high-relief landscapes and their associated
drainage networks, few investigations have been carried out on low-relief landscapes in humid climates,
such as those prevalent on the Southern Coastal Plain. Characterized by broad, flat drainage systems and
slow-moving rivers and streams, the landscape of the coastal plain is dominated by wetland ecosystems that
greatly affect the quantity and quality of surface water.
This study investigates the areal organization of drainage basins. Basins were divided into two
functional zones, headwater and channelway (Figure 2.1). On the basis of these zones, measurements of
total area, wetland area, and relief were made from maps. Indices of organization were calculated from
these measurements. This information was compiled and subjected to regression tests to determine the
relationships between wetland area, type of zone, and zone area in order to develop equations useful in
predicting wetland area from basin or zone areas. In addition, data from whole basins were subjected to
both regression and comparison tests to gain insight into relationships of physical characteristics between
drainage basins. Their hierarchical significance was determined by organizing basins into basin-order and
basin-size groups and testing for the existence of significant differences. Finally, the data were organized
into two sets, based on relative geographic location of the basins within peninsular Florida, and tested for
significant differences. With the results of this analysis, relative distribution of wetlands, and its relationship
to basins and basin zones in two geographic locales were determined.




Study Areas



Study areas were chosen from the basins of the Anclote, Manatee, Peace, Pithlachascotee, St. Johns,
St. Marys, Suwannee, and Withlacoochee rivers. Their relative locations are shown in Figure 2.2. Basins
































(b)






















Stream A>Stream
of second-order or greaterHeadwater






Channelway



CONDITIONS
1. za > zb and/or
2. drainage area of
Stream A>Slream B





Figure 2.1 Determination of headwater/channelway zone boundary: (a) first-order basins, (b) basins
of second-order or greater.





































Florida

M STUDY AREA


PIIhiaclhascoQ1




Manatee
R ver


N



0 100 200
kilometers




















Figure 2.2 Location of study areas.


r
,O










were chosen mainly from two levels in major river basins: basins tributary to the river, and basins tributary
to the tributary. A total of 123 basins, comprising 239, 228 hectares (ha), were studied. Of these, 19 are
tributary basins, and 104 are subbasins. A tributary drainage basin is defined as containing a stream directly
confluent with a river possessing an outlet to the sea. A subbasin contains a stream directly confluent with
a tributary. The general term "basin" refers to both tributary basins and subbasins.
All basins in Florida have been impacted to some degree by man through logging, farming,
road-building, and high-intensity development. Relative extent of man-induced disturbance, as determined
from maps and photographs, was the main criterion used for choosing tributary drainage basins and
subbasins for this study. Some subbasins were chosen from relatively undisturbed areas within tributary
basins considered too disturbed for analysis.











METHODS


Production of Drainage Basin Maps



Maps of drainage basins, showing stream channels and basin, zone, and wetland boundaries were
produced for the study sites at a scale of 1:24000. Topographic quadrangles from the 7.5-minute U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) series were used as base maps to which all other maps used in the process were
registered. Drainage basin maps obtained from the USGS were used to define basin boundaries. These
were blueline diazo copies of the 1:24000-scale 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle maps with basin
delineations determined using the standard method (Foose 1980).
Florida's low relief makes basin delineation difficult. Floodwaters may breach divides, causing
the development of shared channels and wetland flow-ways. There is presently no standard method for
dealing with this problem except to accept the divide as indicative of the drainage pattern prevalent under
"normal" conditions. In addition, perched depressions may not contribute overland flow to the system. No
attempt was made to determine or delineate these noncontributing areas.



Determination of Headwater/Channelway Boundaries

All basins (tributary basins and subbasins) were divided into two zones: headwater and
channelway. This constitutes an extension of the method of regionalization, used by Marcus (1976), to
include basins of all orders. In basins of second order or greater, location of the boundary was determined
by choosing the stream branch draining the greatest area, and/or the one whose confluence angle from the
direction of the main channel was greatest (Horton 1945). This method is shown in Figure 2.1.
On the USGS drainage basin maps, lines were drawn from both sides of the stream head to the
drainage divide using the same method used for basin delineation. These lines were then transferred to the
draft maps.



Wetland Mapping and Classification

Blackline diazo copies of quad-centered 1:24000-scale 1972-73 Mark Hurd aerial photography were
used to draw wetland boundaries on the basin maps. Due to the difficulty in interpreting vegetation
signatures on black-and-white photography, color-infrared 1:58000-scale 1983-84 National High Altitude
Program (NHAP) transparencies and prints, and color-infrared 1:52000-scale 1972-73 Mark Hurd prints
were used as aids in interpretation of wetland signatures. Significant differences in wetland signatures are
not evident despite the 11-year difference in the dates of the photography used. Actual changes in the










apparent size or composition of vegetation communities, due to natural causes, occur slowly. Man-induced
changes affect wetland signatures less than those of other land uses due to the reduced development
potential of wet environments. Where there was significant change, USGS topographic maps were consulted
to determine probable location, size, and community type.
Each wetland was classified according to two criteria: hydrologic location within the basin (i.e.,
perched, riverine), and predominant vegetative cover (forested, shrub, nonforested). Hydrologic location
of a wetland with respect to the floodplain was determined from topographic maps. Wetlands were
designated as perched if they were located outside the floodplain which was delineated by the contour
adjacent to the main channel. Predominant vegetative cover was determined from aerial photography. A
reduced version of a work map is shown in Figure 2.3.



Measurement of Areas

The basin maps were reduced from draft scale of 1:24000 for ease in measurement on the digitizer.
Due to the great difference in basin sizes, three working scales were necessary: 1:24000, 1:33000, 1:54000.
Basin and wetland boundaries were digitized using a Houston Instruments Complot Series 7000 digitizer
and Zenith Z-150 hard disk microcomputer. Areas of basins, subbasins, zones, and wetlands were
measured.
Precision trials were conducted at the 1:24000 and 1:54000 scales to determine the minimum value
at which measurement may be considered fairly precise, and therefore, reliable. Five wetlands, ranging in
area from approximately 32 ha to .06 ha, were measured five times each at both scales. A value for
precision was determined by calculating the percent difference between the smallest and largest values in
each set of five values. Values greater than 10% were considered fairly imprecise. At 1:54000, the range
of values for a wetland less than 1 ha in size may be as great as 13%. Wetlands greater than 1 ha exhibited
ranges differing anywhere from 1 to 9%. The imprecision evident in areas of less than 1 ha should not
significantly affect quantitative assessment of wetland area relationships as the area of wetlands in this class
is small when compared to the total area of wetlands.
Basin, channelway zone, and wetland areas were measured from the draft maps. Values are based
on the outlines of these features as projected on the two-dimensional map surface, and hence, are estimates
of the true areas. Low relief of the study areas allows the assumption that the difference between true area
and map area is negligible relative to the size of the area.
Headwater area is the map area of a headwater zone in a drainage basin. It is derived by
subtracting channelway area from basin area to eliminate the inconsistencies inherent in redigitization of
boundary and divide lines.
Total wetland area is the area of all wetlands within a given basin, headwater, or channelway.


































*


UJ U, 0,. ,L. (j Z

c c o
LUO


% I


0O



sc

* *
II






I










Other Physical Characteristics


Length of the longitudinal axis through each basin, channelway, and headwater was measured from
1:24000-scale USGS drainage basin maps. As above, the difference between true length and map length
is assumed to be negligible due to low relief.
Maximum basin relief was determined from the USGS drainage basin maps. It is defined as the
difference in elevation between points where the longitudinal axis crosses the drainage divides at basin
mouth and basin head. In peninsular Florida, the maximum contour interval is 5 feet Relief is interpolated
to the nearest foot.
Maximum channelway relief is the elevation difference between basin mouth and the point where
the axis crosses the headwater/channelway boundary. Maximum headwater relief is the elevation difference
between the axis crossing of the boundary and the basin-head divide.
Basin order was determined for both tributary basins and their subbasins using Horton's (1945)
stream-classification method as revised by Strahler (1957). Channels were drawn where definite
crenulations were present in the contours to increase the accuracy of these determinations (Morisawa 1957).




Indices of Organization



Relief ratio (Schumm 1956) is the ratio of maximum relief to length of the longitudinal axis. It
is a dimensionless value that represents the tangent of the slope angle.
Upland/wetland ratio is the ratio of upland area to wetland area in a given basin or basin zone.
It indicates the total area of upland contributing water to a unit of wetland. Headwater/channelway ratio
is the ratio of headwater area to channelway area in a given basin.
The size-class distribution for individual wetland areas was determined by tabulating frequency of
area by the following classes: 0.1 to 1.0 ha, 1.1 to 10.0 ha, 10.1 to 100.0 ha, 100.1 to 1000.0 ha. The
logarithmic class sizes were necessary to deal with the wide range of wetland areas measured.




Statistical Analyses



Area-Slope Relationships Within Basin Zones

Organization within basins was investigated by determining the relationships between wetland
area,zone area, and zone relief ratio. Multiple regression was completed to study the relationships and
trends between the independent variables of zone area, relief ratio, and the dependent variable of wetland










area. Comparison tests were completed on the data sets for all headwater and channelway zones to
determine whether there is a significant difference (.01 significance level) between basin zones.



Area-Slope Relationships Within Basins

Organization between basins was investigated by determining the relationships between wetland
area, basin area, and basin relief ratio. Multiple regression was completed to study the relationships and
trends between the independent variables of basin area, relief ratio, and the dependent variable of wetland
area.



Significance of Basin Order to Basin and Basin Zone Relationships

The hierarchical significance of basin order to the area and relief variables was investigated. The
data were grouped by basin order and the SAS equivalent of the Kruskal-Wallis H test used to determine
the existence of significant differences between the orders for all variables.



Significance of Basin Size to Basin and Basin Zone Relationships

The hierarchical significance of basin size to the area and relief variables was investigated. The
data were grouped by basin size and the SAS equivalent of the Kruskal-Wallis H test were used to
determine the existence of significant differences between the orders for all variables. Mean values for the
significant variables were compared to determine their behavior with respect to basin size.



Significance of Geographic Locale to Basin and Basin Zone Relationships


Significance of general geographic location was determined by dividing the data set into two
categories representing northern and centrally-located basins. These subsets were compared using the SAS
version of the Mann-Whitney U test for significant differences.












RESULTS


Area-Slope Relationships Within Basin Zones



Multiple linear regression of channelway wetland area on the independent variables of channelway
zone area and relief ratio (tangent of the longitudinal slope angle) reveals a function characterized by a relief
term that is very small. The contribution of this term to explanation of variation in wetland area is
extremely small when compared to that of the channelway area term, and its parameter estimate is not
significant at .01.
Although the model is significant at .01, there is systematic variation in residual scatter
(heteroscedasticity), which invalidates one of the prerequisite assumptions for validity of regression results.
Simple linear regression of the logarithm of wetland area on the logarithm of zone area results in a model
and parameter estimate significant at .01, but heteroscedasticity still exists. The regression line calculated
is expressed by the following equation:

log WAC = -2.6 + 1.1 log CA, (1)

where WAC is total area of wetlands within
the channelway zone, and CA is the total
area of channelway.

Simple linear regression of the logarithm of headwater wetland area on the independent variable
of the logarithm of headwater zone area also results in a model and parameter estimate significant at .01.
As in the channelway model, heteroscedasticity also exists. The regression line calculated is expressed by
the following equation:

log WAH = -2.2 + 1.1 log HA, (2)

where WAH is the total area of wetlands in
the headwater zone, and HA is the total
area of headwater.

Comparison of the data sets for all headwater and channelway zones show significant differences
at .01 between the zones for the variables of upland/wetland ratio and relief ratio. Mean values for the
upland/wetland area ratio in headwaters and channelways are 6 + 6 and 10 + 12 ha, respectively. In other
words, on the average there are 6 ha of upland for every hectare of wetland in headwater zones. Mean


2-10










values for the relief ratio in headwaters and channel ways are 0.179 + 0.198 and 0.240 + 0.215 degrees,
respectively. On the average, headwater zones have an inclination of 0.179 degrees.
When the ratio of upland to wetland area is plotted against the relief ratio (expressed in degrees
of slope) it is evident only that the range of the area ratio increases with increasing slope (Figure 2.4).
Plotting the logarithm of wetland area against degrees of slope for headwater and channelway zones
suggests an exponential function where wetland area decreases with increasing slope (Figure 2.5).




Area-Slope Relationships Within Basins



Simple linear regression of the logarithm of basin wetland area on the independent variable of the
logarithm of basin area results in a model and parameter estimate significant at .01. As in the channelway
and headwater models, heteroscedasticity also exists. The regression line calculated is expressed by the
following equation:

log WAB = -2.8 + 1.1 log BA, (3)

where WAB is total area of wetlands within
drainage basins, and BA is the total area
of the basin.

Plotting the logarithm of basin wetland area against degrees of basin slope suggests an exponential
function where wetland area decreases with increasing slope (Figure 2.6).




Significance of Basin Order to Basin and Basin Zone Relationships



Comparison of the basin data shows significant differences at .01 between basin orders for the
following variables: basin area, channelway area, headwater area, basin wetland area, basin relief ratio,
channelway relief ratio, headwater relief ratio, all wetland size-classes, and all wetland areas by type.
Variables that do not exhibit significant differences are the upland-to-wetland area ratio, and the
headwater-to-channelway area ratio. Orders 1 through 4 are represented by 26, 52, 35, and 9 samples,
respectively. Median values for each of the variables exhibiting significant differences between orders are
shown in Table 2.1.
Frequency distributions of the data for most of the variables are positively skewed, the skewness
ranging from 0.76, for channelway relief ratio, to 8.63 for area of riverine-nonforested wetland. Both of
these values represent central Florida basins. For this reason, arithmetic means and standard deviations are


2-11
























604


404


I.

I .n
I w r ..
I r I
0- r**


0.2 04 0.6 0.8 1.0

HEADWATER SLOPE (degrees)


2.2 1.4
1.2 1.4


..


02 04 0.6 0.1 1.0

CHANNELWAY SLOPE (degrees)


1.2 1.4
1.2 1-4


Changes in upland/wetland area ratio with changes in slope: (a) headwater zones, (b)

channelway zones.


2-12


30-4


0.0


Figure 2.4


0-


v.


"'


* *














Ca) so-



MJ


Li


U.'J T | a "
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 8 1.0 12

HEADWATER SLOPE (degrees)


UM p


0.0 0.2 0 4 o0 08

CHANNELWAY SLOPE (degrees)


1.0 1.2


Changes in logarithm of wetland ara with changes in

channelway zones.


slope: (a) headwater zones, (b)


2-13


Figure 2.5


Ii[] i


"
....
.. .



U














































4.00-























&00-











1.00


0.00oo 0. 20


0.30 0.40 0.0(


--BASIN SLOPE (degrees)


0o0 Q70


Changes in the logarithm of basin wetland area with changes in basin slope.


* a






. .
.


VYV I 1 I I













r



r
r


r
~





r




Figure 2.6











Table 2.1 Median values for variables exhibiting significant differences between basin orders.



Order
Variable

1 2 3 4


Basin area (a) 105.5 276 1381 8430
Channelway area (a) 42 126 848 5705
Headwater area (a) 51 78 339 759
Wetland area basin (a) 14.5 39 233 1858
Basin slope (b) 0.216 0.170 0.110 0.079
Channelway slope (b) 0.280 0.226 0.152 0.084
Headwater slope (b) 0.164 0.139 0.104 0.047
Number of wetlands:
0.1 1.0 ha 2 11 55 386
1.1 10.0 ha 1 3 16 72
10.1 100.0 ha 0 0 1 47
100.1 1000.0 ha 0 0 0 1
Perched-forested wetland area (a) 4 13 87 657
-shrub wetland area (a) 0 0 18 53
-nonforested wetland area (a) 2 4 19 340
Riverine-forested wetland area (a) 0 0 34 174
-shrub wetland area (a) 0 0 0 0
-nonforested wetland area (a) 0 0 0 0


(a) hectares
(b) degrees of slope


2-15










unreliable as indicators of average values. Comparison and discussion of central tendencies will rely on
median values, as observations for many variables are unique, rendering mode comparison also unreliable.
Basin, channelway, headwater, and total basin wetland areas increase with basin order.
Longitudinal slopes in basins and basin zones decrease with increasing order. The frequencies of wetlands
with areas of 0.1 to 1.0 ha and 1.1 to 10.0 ha increase from minimum values in first-order basins to
maximum values in fourth-order basins. Wetlands with areas of 10.1 to 100.0 ha occur mainly in third- and
fourth-order basins, and increase in number with order. Wetlands with areas of 100.1 to 1000.0 ha occur
mainly in fourth-order basins.
Areas of each wetland type increase with basin order. Median values are greater than zero in all
orders for perched-forested and -nonforested wetland areas. The values for perched-shrub and
riverine-forested are greater than zero only for the third- and fourth-order basins. Riverine-shrub and
-nonforested wetland types have zero median values for all orders, although their ranges show an increase
from 0, in the first-order basins, to 145 shrub wetlands and 604 nonforested wetlands in the fourth-order
basins.




Significance of Basin Size to Basin and Basin Zone Relationships



Basin areas ranged from 16 to 65,769 ha. For this reason logarithmic size-classes were used to
summarize the data. Size-class intervals were as follows: 10.1 100.0, 100.1 1000.0, 1000.1 10000.0,
and 10000.1 100000.0. Comparison tests for basin size show significant differences between size-classes
for all variables. Plots of the logarithm of wetland area against relief ratio (in degrees of slope) show a
definite trend of increasing wetland area with decreasing basin slope (Figure 2.7). Size-class 3, representing
basins ranging in size from 100.1 to 1000.0 ha, exhibits the widest range in slopes.
Categorization of the data by basin area, and calculation of descriptive statistics for each size-class
produced the values shown in Table 2.2. The headwater/channelway area ratio decreases with increasing
basin size, as does the basin upland/wetland area ratio. Note that means for all relief ratios decrease as
basin size increases, and that headwater and channelway zone relief ratios, in particular, become
approximately equal in basins greater than 1000 ha in size.




Significance of Geographic Locale to Basin and Basin Zone Relationships



Comparison of all basin data shows significant differences at .01 between geographic locales for
the following variables: basin area, channelway area, headwater-to-channelway ratio, channelway relief
ratio, number of wetlands of size 10.1 to 100.0 ha, and the areas of perched-shrub and perched-nonforested
wetlands, and all riverine wetland types. The north region is represented by 45 samples, and the central


2-16





















00
6o

0
o











0Q 0


.* *

*d
U N..S.0



0. o o o o


V31UV GNV1..3M NISV9 0"1


0 .
o

d




o









0 0 oO


V3dUV NV71J3M NISVg 001)


(U



w 0
o

CO 0
WL 0
w d


0
0



O 0

o o


S m


Si i


S Ci I 4 1-
0 0j 0


VlUV ONV1.3M NISV8 001


w 0o
w-
a 0




0
o w

0 o
IJ

n *
W


C.


' i i


0 o o o

V3UV aNV1i3M NISVS 001


2-17


Cd
W
o
w







a
oN Z

m






o
o
0
01


cns





08
U
So0













S:1
.=














d


-,
w
0

w
a
0

IL


0
01

cu. z








o.
ca



CD



_


i


i











Table 2.2 Mean values for basin variables by basin size-class for all basins.*


Basin Size-Class (a)

10.0- 100.1- 1000.1- 10,000.1-
Variable 100.0 1000.0 10,000.0 100,000.0


Basin area (b)
Channelway area (b)
Headwater area (b)
Headwater/channelway area ratio
Wetland area (b)
Upland/wetland area ratio
Basin relief ratio (c)
Channelway relief ration (c)
Headwater relief ratio (c)
Number of wetlands:
0.1 1.0 ha
1.1 10.0 ha
10.1 100.0 ha
100.1 1000.0 ha
Perched-forested wetland area (b)
-shrub wetland area (b)
-nonforested wetland area (b)
Riverine-forested wetland area (b)
-shrub wetland area (b)
-nonforested wetland area (b)


58 24
22 17
36 21
3+4
76
13 15
0.347 0.138
0.484 0.345
0.308 0.251

4+4
1+1
0
0
56
0+1
0+2
1+4
0
0


369 231
205 180
164 193
2+4
66 67
87
0.186 + 0.100
0.237 + 0.133
0.181 + 0.202

19 + 19
44
0 1
0
40 64
7 12
10 16
10 19
1+2
01


3824 2129
2485 1797
1255 1364
2+4
815 + 585
4+2
0.085 0.033
0.104 + 0.065
0.091 + 0.053

159 99
34 18
43
01
452 + 519
87 85
120 132
157 200
11 31
38


27935 19830
20878 19452
7057 8467
1 1
7292 5574
3 1
0.117 0.168
0.059 0.037
0.056 0.035

859 603
234 156
28 + 21
32
4816 + 4966
868 1642
631 593
797 926
82 + 113
98 224


SAMPLE SIZE (d) 19 21 60 68 24 27 7


(a) Size-class limits in hectares
(b) Hectares
(c) Degrees of slope
(d) Variation in sample size due to zero or trace values that could not be included in calculations

* All variables showed significant differences for size-class.


2-18










by 78. Median values for each of the variables exhibiting significant differences between locales are shown
in Table 2.3.
Central region basin and channelway areas are larger than in the northern region by factors of 2
and 6, respectively. Ratio of headwater area to channelway area is less than that in the north by 0.2.
Channelway relief ratios, converted to slope angle, differ by a factor of 0.5, with northern basins having
the greater longitudinal channelway slope. Number of wetlands of size 1.1 to 10.0 ha is twice that of the
northern region. Areas of perched-shrub, perched-nonforested, and riverine-type wetlands in the central
region exceed those of the north, which all have median values of zero. Ranges for the areas of
riverine-shrub and riverine-nonforested wetlands are zero for northern basins. The ranges for perched-shrub,
perched-nonforested, and riverine-forested in northern basins are 0-229, 0-209, and 0-552 ha, respectively.
Comparison of the basin data in each geographic locale by basin size-class shows significant
differences at .01 for the variables whose means are shown with an asterisk in Tables 2.4 and 2.5. The
statistics indicate that headwater/channelway area ratios in each locale are relatively constant across the
spectrum of size-classes and that headwaters are larger in north Florida basins. A consistent trend in basin
relief ratios does not exist across the spectrum of size-classes in either locale.
Headwater and channelway zones in north Florida are significantly different at the .01 level for the
variables of wetland area, upland/wetland ratio, relief ratio, number of wetlands of size 0.1 to 1.0 ha and
1.1 to 10.0 ha, and area of perched-forested wetland. Means for these variables (Table 2.6) show that
headwater zones in this locale have at least twice as much wetland area and half the slope of channelway
zones.
Central Florida zones are significantly different for the variables of zone area, wetland area, number
of wetlands of size 0.1 to 1.0 ha and 1.1 to 10.0 ha, and area of perched-nonforested wetland. Means for
these variables (Table 2.7) show that headwater zones have only a little more wetland area than channelway
zones.



Wetland Frequency

Comparison of cumulative wetland frequency for basin zones and basins by wetland size-class show
an exponential function where the number of wetlands in a given landscape (headwater, channelway, or
basin) decreases sharply with increasing wetland size (Figure 2.8). The percentage of basin or zone area
in wetlands of a given size (Figure 2.9) show that the percent of headwater or channelway zone area in
wetlands increases with increasing size of wetlands. Note that channelway zones exceed headwater zones
in having more of their area in extremely small wetlands. However, the largest wetlands comprise more
area in headwater zones. This same trend is reflected in Figure 2.10.



Representative Basins


Representative basins were chosen from each size-class in each geographic locale to illustrate the
composition of an "average" basin (Figures 2.11-2.14). Shown are the statistics for aggregate wetland area
in percent by basin zone.


2-19











Table 2.3 Median values for basin variables exhibiting significant differences between geographic locales.


Basin Locality

North Central

Basin area (a) 249 469
Channelway area (a) 57 313.5
Headwater/channelway ratio 2.2 0.4
Channelway slope (b) 0.318 0.147
Number of wetlands 1.1 10.0 ha 2 4.5
Perched-shrub wetland area (a) 0 13
-nonforested wetland area (a) 0 13
Riverine-forested wetland area (a) 0 10.5
-shrub wetland area (a) 0 0
-nonforested wetland area (a) 0 0


hectares
degress of slope


2-20










Table 2.4 Mean values for basin variables by basin size-class for north Florida basins.


Basin Size-Class (a)

10.0- 100.1- 1000.1- 10,000.1-
Variable 100.0 1000.0 10,000.0 100,000.0

Basin area (b)* 59 26 396 254 4912 15757 21597 15757
Channelway area (b)* 18 15 121 100 2424 2209 6857 5165
Headwater area (b) 41 22 274 259 2118 1503 14740 10592
Headwater/channelway area ratio* 4 4 4 5 5 6 2 0
Wetland area (b) 7 6 88 + 95 1328 752 7405 + 5947
Upland/wetland area ratio 13 15 7 6 3 1 2 0
Basin relief ratio (c)* 0.358 0.149 0.182 0.66 0.085 0.033 0.058 0.013
Channelway relief ration (c)* 0.535 0.382 0.330 0.124 0.104 0.065 0.083 0.060
Headwater relief ratio (c) 0.305 0.273 0.104 0.058 0.091 0.053 0.040 0.018
Number of wetlands:
0.1 1.0 ha 5 4 24 24 159 99 556 241
1.1 10.0 ha 1 1 5 5 34 18 210 169
10.1 100.0 ha* 0 0 + 1 4 3 30 + 25
100.1 1000.0 ha 0 0 0 1 3 1
Perched-forested wetland area (b) 7 6 84 95 452 519 7084 5597
-shrub wetland area (b)* 0 0 1 87 85 26 + 37
-nonforested wetland area (b)* 0 0 1 120 132 106 146
Riverine-forested wetland area (b)* 0 1 4 8 157 200 188 241
-shrub wetland area (b) 0 0 11 31 0
-nonforested wetland area (b) 0 0 3 8 0

SAMPLE SIZE (d) 16 13 21 3 -6 2

(a) size-class limits in hectares
(b) hectares
(c) degrees of slope
(d) variation in sample size due to zero or trace values that could not be included in calculations
* variables exhibiting significant differences between basin size-classes










Table 2.5 Mean values for basin variables by basin size-class for central Florida basins.


Basin Size-Class (a)

10.0- 100.1- 1000.1- 10,000.1-
Variable 100.0 1000.0 10,000.0 100,000.0

Basin area (b)* 57 15 357 222 3512 2080 30470 22352
Channelway area (b)* 35 16 242 195 2504 1726 26488 20574
Headwater area (b) 22 5 114 130 1009 1252 3984 6178
Headwater/channelway area ratio* 1 1 1 3 1 2 <1
Wetland area (b) 8 7 56 48 668 450 7246 6144
Upland/wetland area ratio 14 + 16 8 7 5 3 4 1
Basin relief ratio (c)* 0.311 0.101 0.187 0.112 0.093 0.037 0.140 0.200
Channelway relief ration (c) 0.319 0.056 0.196 0.115 0.089 0.049 0.049 0.026
Headwater relief ratio (c) 0.315 0.185 0.215 0.023 0.096 0.050 0.063 0.040
Number of wetlands:
0.1 1.0 ha 2 1 17 + 16 139 + 75 980 + 684
1.1 10.0 ha 1 1 4 3 31 + 14 244 + 170
10.1 100.0 ha* 0 0 3 + 2 27 22
100.1 1000.0 ha 0 0 0 3 3
Perched-forested wetland area (b) 1 1 20 30 262 276 3908 5056
-shrub wetland area (b)* 1 1 10 14 92 81 1205 1883
-nonforested wetland area (b)* 2 3 12 18 137 134 842 574
Riverine-forested wetland area (b)* 4 8 12 22 162 202 1040 1006
-shrub wetland area (b)* 0 1 3 15 35 115 120
-nonforested wetland area (b)* 0 0 1 4 9 137 262

SAMPLE SIZE (d) 4-5 45 47 20 21 5

(a) size-class limits in hectares
(b) hectares
(c) degrees of slope
(d) variation in sample size due to zero or trace values that could not be included in calculations
* all variables showed significant differences for size-class


2-22










in mY.
00 tn t- 5
-H -Ho -H -H +i + cD
0 N 001+110
m
c' aOc'
otn o


++o

00 C.


00

+1+1 +1
i *-- r-


cq- 0
+1 +1 N +14
\00 *l-

0


-"a
+1 +1

oc
00
fl '


Ns a\ 10
+1 -+1 + +1

I^r CTN






+1 +1 -H +1
S00 ON -
kn t^ n

0




tn N^
-+1 C+1 +1
\0 C (4
tn
(

00

0 +1
00


00 +1 0


+1 +1 0 0 +1 0 +1 +1 0 0
So0 m o -


-H 00








-H +1 +1
- r- Ri


0000


-H+00


C."

+1 +1 +1,
ero ",-
\

,o 0,..
-+ -H 4 +t1 +-0 . .








+100+-H00
- 00


+1+1 00+1 00
'fl C'


Se

CUc3 a c


4) I -

) .


c-





00


2-23


CD

+1 +1 +1

00 -
d


+1 +1
+If


a
-Sp
Gu






















rW
. I










>s
I-a



S-





-Cu


.C
Cu




Cd C


.ssC.


I I












-
+1-H-


0


0*





0
0

0

0




9



6



0
6;





9



6;


9






9

0
0

6


9;

0



9





6


S o.

+1 +1 +1 +1


00

0

c. 0N 00 C)
-H +1 +1 +1
\0 C3 00 \0
'IT53


+1 +1 +1
4


+1 +1 0 0 +1








+1 +1 0 0 +1
NSO 0


-++1 +1 -H
m r-O
00 ^ c^ 3
ml oo 0
Cs 4 -


+1 +1 -H +1
0=\0 en t
r- 00 c- i


r- cN
+1 +1 +1 +1
oo O o


0
-H102
+1 +1 +100
0N c4 V


II I I I I


00

+1 + +1 +1


a o



m




0
So0
+1+1 +1 +1
o (s











\00
cs 0 ~In
vrn '<







\O bcV f(
'0


gce
*
0
I-





= =
*- 3a 1
A 0 z3 *


5 z


0 (0 o


CM0\Ogo


(- in en
0 -+1 +1 -1
t- en c-
en 04


CM-0
00w
+1+100=+1 +1+1
CM- 'i.cMrf


* I I


- -O++l


e e


e3 ca" 9 e




SSa" 'S" '
0~~~ T3a*?* a .a





a.) ^


73







0




Oa
















0C2
.)













I


N '>





8 8








I Ogs

'I, s :
N 5 53 v >
.s~ ,

.' C.) '^ <^


2-24


0r0\


+1 +1
o\\
'IT


a)
0
0
I-































SHEADWATE
S- ." 7CHANNELW

o .








Z


2*
z 3- -0.0 0.-00.0



















0. -- I.0 1.1- 10.0 10.1 --100.0 IOOJ cX

SIZE-CLASS (hectares]




Figure 2.8 Changes in wetland frequency with changes in wetland size-class.


2-25


AR
AY


30.0






























































0.1 -1.0 1.1- 10.0 10.1 -100.0 100.1- 1000.0
SIZE-CLASS (hectares)



Changes in percent of total area with changes in wetland size-class.


2-26


Figure 2.9






















HEADWATER
* CHANNELWAY
BASIN


h VAS


0.1 LO


IJ 10.0


10.1 100.0


100.1 1000.0


SIZE-CLASS (hectares)



Figure 2.10 Changes in percent of total wetland area with changes in wetland size-class.


2-27










(a)

REPRESENTATIVE' DRAINAGE BASINS
NORTH FLORIDA



10.1 to 100.0 ha BASN SIZE-CLASS
CHANNELWAY HEADWATER
ZONE ZONE
41% of Basin area / 59% of Basin area
7% in Wetlands 25% in Wetlands













Cb)


100.1-100. h BASIN SIZE-CLASS


CHANELWAY HEAOWATER
ZONE 70N


14% of Basin area\
< 2% in Wetlands


/86% of Basin area
17% in Wetlands


3 2 4
Kilometers


Figure 2.11 Representative drainage basins of north Florida: (a) 10.1-100.0 ha basin size-class, (b)
100.1-1000.0 ha basin size-class.


2-28





































m
~
m
.e co
e
PLO

eI
$i
b
a








REPRESENTATIVE DRAINAGE BASINS
CENTRAL FLORIDA


(a) 10.1 to 100.0 ho BASIN SIZE-CLASS





HEAOWATER\\ CHANNELWu Y
ZONE \\ 7N
23% of Basin area 77% of Basin area
7% in Wetlands 9% in Wetlands


(b) 'cO.l 'o 0000 h BASIN SIZE-CLASS
CHAN.ELWAY

/ 64% of Basin area
*1'1 % v in Wetlands


14% In Wetlands


(C) O000.1 to 10,000 ha BASIN SIZE-CLASS


SHEADWATER
ZONE
8% of Basin area
35% in Wetlands


Figure 2.13 Representative drainage basins of central Florida: (a) 10.1-100.0 ha basin size-class, (b)
100.1-1000.0 ha basin size-class, (c) 1000.1-10,000.0 ha basin size-class.


2-30








REPRESENTATIVE DRAINAGE BASINS
CENTRAL FLORIDA


0 2 4
Kilometers


Figure 2.14 Representative drainage basins of central Florida: 10,000.1-100,000.0 ha basin size-class.



2-31












DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS


Strahler (1957) argued that the usefulness of a stream ordering system is founded on the underlying
assumption that the order number is directly proportional to relative basin dimensions. Results of this study
confirm this assumption for low-relief basins (Figure 2.15).
The relationship of basin slope angle to basin area is shown in Figure 2.16. These results confirm
the observations of Langbein et al. (1947) and Schumm (1973) that basin slope decreases with increasing
area.




Significance of Basin Order, Size, and Geographic Locale to Basin Zone Relationships



Although areas for both headwater and channelway zones show an increase with order, it is
interesting to note that the ratio of headwater area to channelway area does not follow the same pattern.
There is a proportional increase in the area of both basin zones with increase in basin area, making the
headwater/channelway area ratio a constant over the spectrum of orders 1 through 4. However, this ratio
varies between geographic regions. This is explainable by the fact that channelway area shows a significant
difference between geographic locales, while headwater area does not. As the former is usually the larger
of the two areas, it greatly influences the behavior of the ratio value.
On the other hand, headwater/channelway area ratios decrease with increasing basin size, which
is not surprising, as the method of zone delineation in larger basins actually delimits headwater zones of
smaller component sub basins. Behavior of this ratio in each geographic locale, however, is essentially
constant across the spectrum of size classes. Statistics show that headwater areas are greater in north
Florida basins. This difference, coupled with unequal sample sizes, should account for the changing
behavior of the headwater/channelway area ratio.




Significance of Basin Order, Size, and Geographic Locale to Basin Relationships



The ratio of upland area to wetland area exhibits a similar trend. Both basin area and basin
wetland area increase with basin order, but there is no significant difference in the ratio values. The lack
of significant differences between ratio values is possibly due to a large range of values for both basin and
basin wetland areas in all orders of basins. Over the hierarchy of orders 1 through 4, however, the
upland/wetland area ratio may be considered a constant.


2-32














































0
000
ci




3000





1000


go
0









0 2

Order No.















Figure 2.15 Changes in basin area with changes in order number.



2-33.

















































,10






.0
00 000 9000
Basin Area (ha)






















Figure 2.16 Changes in basin slope with changes in basin area.


2-34









With increasing basin size, upland/wetland ratios decrease. This is a departure from the
relationship between basin order and upland/wetland ratios, which may be ascribed to the overlap of
basin-area ranges between basin-order classes.
Relief ratios for basins and basin zones also decrease with increasing basin size. This supports the
findings of previous research concerning the relationship between relief and basin order. There is no
consistent trend in the basin relief ratio with respect to geographic locale.
Hierarchical significance of the area of wetland type by basin order is most evident in riverine-type
wetlands. These wetlands are scarce or nonexistent in first- and second-order basins, which have greater
channelway slopes than higher-order basins. Areas of riverine-type wetlands are greater in central Florida
basins, which generally have lower channelway slopes. Forested wetlands are the most commonly found
riverine-type wetland. Perched-shrub wet lands are infrequently found (at least 50% of the sample have
none of this type) in first- and second-order basins.
Frequency distributions of basin wetland area show a definite ascending hierarchical organization
with respect to their occurrence in basins of a given order. This can be ascribed, at least in part, to the
upper limits possible given a basin of certain size. With respect to geographic location, however, the
frequency of wetlands of size 1.0 to 10.0 ha is twice as great in central Florida basins as in northern basins.
Although the regression results relating wetland area to basin areas are flawed by the presence of
heteroscedasticity, they suggest the possibility that wetland area within a given zone is related to zone area
by a function affected by relative position within the basin. In other words, the function relating wetland
area to zone area depends on the zone being considered.




Conclusions



Results of this investigation support the findings of previous research on high-relief basins with
respect to the relationship between basin area, slope, and order. In the low-relief basins of peninsular
Florida, basin area is directly proportional to basin order, and basin slope is inversely proportional to order.
In addition, the results establish the relative constancy of two organization indices,
headwater/channelway ratio and upland/wetland ratio, over the spectrum of first- through fourth-order basins.
However, headwater/channelway ratios vary with regard to relative geographic location. Each zone
characteristic describes different functions that, taken together, determine basin response.
Forested, shrub, and nonforested wetlands each require different physical conditions in terms of
water depth, nutrients, and hydroperiod. Their location depends on the physical configuration of the basin.
Basins with lower slopes and wide floodplains contain more riverine-type wetlands. Perched-forested
wetlands are the most common wetland type and they are found in most basins in northern and central
Florida.
The method used to determine zone boundaries affects interpretation of the behavior of
headwater/channelway ratios across the spectrum of basin size-classes. Decreasing ratios with increasing
basin size, in many cases, reflects the fact that headwaters of larger basins are actually headwaters of
component subbasins.


2-35


~












LITERATURE CITED


Foose, D. W. 1980. Drainage areas of selected surface-water sites in Florida. U.S. Geological Survey
Open-file Report 80-957.

Horton, R. E. 1945. Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins. Geological Society of
America Bulletin 56(3):275-370.

Langbein, W. B. 1947. Topographic characteristics of drainage basins. U.S. Geological Survey
Water-Supply Paper 968-C.

Marcus, A. L. 1976. The first-order drainage basin: A morphological analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, Clark
University, Worcester, Massachusetts.

Morisawa, M. E. 1957. Accuracy of determination of stream lengths from topographic maps. American
Geophysicists Union Transcripts 38:86-88.

Schumm, S. A. 1956. Evolution of drainage systems and slopes in badlands at Perth Amboy, New Jersey.
Geological Society of America Bulletin 67:597-646. Reprinted in Drainage basin morphology, ed.
S. A. Schumm, 1977, p. 269-305. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.

Schumm, S. A. 1973. Geomorphic thresholds and complex response of drainage systems. In Fluvial
Geomorphology, ed. M. E. Morisawa, pp. 299-310. State University New York, Binghamton.
Reprinted in Drainage basin morphology, ed. S. A. Schumm, 1977, p.. 335-46. Dowden,
Hutchinson and Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.

Strahler, A. N. 1957. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. American Geophysicists Union
Transcripts 38(6):913-20.


2-36




















Chapter 3

FLOODPLAIN VEGETATION
OF SMALL STREAM WATERSHEDS
by Francesca E. H. Gross










TABLE OF CONTENTS


FLOODPLAIN VEGETATION OF SMALL STREAM WATERSHEDS ...........
INTRODUCTION ............................. .............
Floodplain Ecosystems of Florida ..........................
Vegetation as Indicator of Water Levels ...............
Quantitative Studies in Florida ................... ...
Plan of Study ........................................
Description of Study Sites ...............................
M ETHODS ................................................
M aps of W atersheds ...................................
Field Measurement Techniques ............................
Location of Study Plots ...........................
Vegetation Sampling .............................
Profile Characteristics ............................
Physical Parameter Sampling .......................
D ata Analysis .......................................
Clustering Vegetation Data .........................
RESULTS ................................................
Characteristics of Small Stream Watersheds ...................
Physical Measurements ...........................
Stream Profiles .................................
Stream Reach Characteristics .......................
Characteristics of Floodplain Vegetation .....................
Vegetation Associations ...........................
Vegetation Types ...............................
Reach Characteristics ................ ...........
Basin Characteristics .............................
DISCUSSION ............................................











LIST OF FIGURES


Figure 3.1 Map of Florida with the location of the 12 stream study sites. ............... 5
Figure 3.2 Width and length of study plots and scheme for sampling canopy trees,
subcanopy trees, woody tree and shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation ........... 8
Figure 3.3 Typical cross-section profiles through (a) headwaters, (b) midreach, and (c) lower
reach, showing surface or surficial groundwater (one-day observation), organic
matter depth, and relative elevation of groundwater. ..................... 17
Figure 3.4 Tree diagram representing a sample data set of four clusters divided at root-
mean-square value of .87. ...................................... 19
Figure 3.5 Scatter plot diagram for first three principal components from peat depth, line
distance and elevation values for the individual trees in the previous tree
diagram ......... ..... ...................................... 20
Figure 3.6 Cross-section profile of typical midreach site (top) compared to canopy tree
species distribution (bottom). .................................... 21
Figure 3.7 Cross-section profile of typical midreach site (top) compared to subcanopy tree
species distribution (bottom). ................ .................. 22
Figure 3.8 Histograms of importance values of major species for 12 vegetation
associations. ................................................ 29
Figure 3.9 Average organic matter depth by vegetation type ...................... 30
Figure 3.10 Percent importance value of major species for three stream reaches. ......... 32
Figure 3.11 Typical cross-sectional profiles for incised streams showing distribution of
vegetation type. ............................................. 33
Figure 3.12 Typical cross-sectional profiles for flat streams showing distribution of vegetation
types...................................................... 34
Figure 3.13 Tree diagram representing similarity of stream basin importance values from
cluster analysis for canopy species. ................................ 38




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2011 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated May 24, 2011 - Version 3.0.0 - mvs