• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Preface
 Task 1a. Stream and drainage basin...
 Task 1b. Characteristics of drainage...
 Task 1c. Floodplain vegetation...
 Task 2a. Development of indices...
 Task 2b. Landscape organization...
 Task 3a. Hydrologic design for...
 Task 3b: Modeled hydrograph of...






Group Title: Development of techniques and guidelines for reclamation of phosphate mined lands as diverse landscapes
Title: Development of techniques and guidelines for reclamation of phosphate mined lands as diverse landscapes and complete hydrologic units M.T. Brown ... [et al.]
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00016642/00001
 Material Information
Title: Development of techniques and guidelines for reclamation of phosphate mined lands as diverse landscapes and complete hydrologic units M.T. Brown ... et al.
Physical Description: 92 leaves : ill., maps (some folded) ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Brown, Mark T ( Mark Theodore ), 1945-
Florida Institute of Phosphate Research
Center for Wetlands
Publisher: Center for Wetlands, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: [1986]
 Subjects
Subject: Restoration ecology -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Reclamation of land -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Phosphate mines and mining -- Environmental aspects -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
General Note: "October 3, 1986."
General Note: At head of title: "Preliminary third annual report and request for fourth year continued funding."
General Note: "FIPR #83-03-044S & 83-03-044T."
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00016642
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 001741651
oclc - 31999103
notis - AJF4342

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    Preface
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Task 1a. Stream and drainage basin characteristics
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
    Task 1b. Characteristics of drainage basins and regional landscape associations in north and central Florida
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
    Task 1c. Floodplain vegetation characteristics of small stream watersheds of peninsular Florida
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 79a
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
    Task 2a. Development of indices of natural and reclaimed ecosystem structure
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
        Page 151
        Page 152
        Page 153
        Page 154
        Page 155
        Page 156
        Page 157
    Task 2b. Landscape organization and community structure of naturally reclaimed lands
        Page 158
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
        Page 162
        Page 163
        Page 164
        Page 165
        Page 166
    Task 3a. Hydrologic design for reclaimed land mosaics
        Page 167
        Page 168
        Page 169
        Page 170
        Page 171
        Page 172
    Task 3b: Modeled hydrograph of native wetland systems
        Page 173
        Page 174
        Page 175
        Page 176
        Page 177
        Page 178
        Page 179
        Page 180
        Page 181
Full Text













Request for Continued Funding and
Comprehensive Progress Report


October 10, 1985




DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNIQUES AND GUIDELINES FOR RECLAMATION
OF PHOSPHATE MINED LANDS AS DIVERSE LANDSCAPES



FIPR #83-03-044





by




M.T. Brown and G.R. Best

with

M. Davis, F. Gross, R. Hassoun, H. Riekerk, P. Straub,
M. Sullivan and W.T.S. Swank







Center for Wetlands
Phelps Lab
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611
904-392-2424


1


' d- 0 L











TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

Preface . . . . ... . . . 1

Objectives for the First and Second Years . . .. 1

Objectives for the Third Year . . . . 2

Research Progress . . . ... . 2

TASK la. Stream and Drainage Basin Characteristics R.E. Tighe . 4

TASK lb. Characteristics of Drainage Basins and Regional Landscape
Associations in North and Central Florida M. Sullivan 30

TASK Ic. Floodplain Vegetation Characteristics of Small Stream
Watersheds of Penninsular Florida F. Gross . ... 48

TASK 2a. Development of Indices of Natural and Reclaimed Ecosystem
Structure M. Davis . . . . ... .. 93

TASK 2b. Landscape Organization and Community Structure of Naturally
Reclaimed Lands Rosina Hassoun . . . ... 158

TASK 3a. Hydrologic Design for Reclaimed Land Mosaics H. Riekerk .167

TASK 3b. Modeled Hydrograph of Native Wetland Systems W.T.S. Swank .173







COMPREHENSIVE PROGRESS REPORT
FOR PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1985



Preface

This is a comprehensive progress report for the second year of a five

year project titled "Development of Techniques and Guidelines for the

Reclamation of Phosphate Mined Lands as Diverse Landscapes" (FIPR #83-03-

0440). All tasks are progressing as scheduled with all field work nearly

complete and data synthesis well under way. We have begun field trials,

with installation of ground and surface water monitoring stations on a

reclaimed site at Gardinier's Ft. Meade mine, and pre-treatment monitoring

wells and surface water stations at Mobile's Ft. Meade.

A new task has been added to the overall project in this second year

under the direction of Dr. Hans Riekerk, Associate Professor of Forest

Hydrology in the School of Forest Resources and Conservation at the

University of Florida. Under separate cover, we have submitted a request

for funding to continue this work for the remaining 3 years of our

contract.



Objectives for the First and Second Years


The primary objectives of the first and second years were to

initialize data collection and develop indicies of landscape organization

and ecosystem structure and function. In Task 1, data on the physical

characteristics of streams and drainage basins, landscapes, and floodplain

ecosystems were collected and analyzed to develop guidelines and design

principles for organization of reclaimed landscapes. In Task 2, data on

the structure of associations of ecological systems were collected and







analyzed to detail relationships of flora to physical parameters such as

water level, hydroperiod, and slope. In task 3, hydrologic data from

mined, reclaimed, and natural landscapes were collected and anaylzed to

define hydrologic characteristics of mined lands for the guidance of

reclamation into functional land mosaics.



Objectives for the Third Year

In the third year, work will center around the analysis of reclaimed

landscapes. The emphasis of Task 2 will shift (as has already begun) to

field measurements of already reclaimed and soon-to-be-reclaimed

landscapes. Task 3 will continue the monitoring of natural, reclaimed,

and soon-to-be-reclaimed watersheds. Task 1 will phase out by the end of

this second year. The data and indicies developed in Task 1 will be

utilized in the reclamation manual.



Research Progress

Task 1. Development of Indicies of Landscape Organization. All

subtasks are on schedule. Field work and data collection are complete,

with the final three months of this year reserved for synthesis of data

and development of indicies of organization. Products from this task

include: characteristic organization and design principles for stream

networks, watersheds, reaches of watersheds, and floodplain ecosystems.

Task 1 will be phased out and data utilized in the reclamation manual.

Task 2. Development of Indicies of Natural and Reclaimed Ecosystem

Structure. All phases of the task are on schedule. A second subtask has

been initiated involving the determination of the spatial and temporal

influences of seed source on naturally reclaimed lands. Field work on

natural ecosystems is mostly complete and measurements on reclaimend








landscapes underway. Data reduction and synthesis has begun on natural

communities and all work on these communities should be complete by year's

end. Drawing from Tasks 1 and 3, this task will develop indicies and

design principles for community organization on reclaimed lands including

relationships to elevation, ground water, and hydroperiods of various

community types and plant species and macro scale principles for intra-

community relationships.

Task 3. Hydrologic Design for Reclaimed Land Mosaics. Ground and

surface water monitoring stations and rainfall stations have been

established on natural, reclaimed, and soon-to-be-reclaimed sites. Some

data from the reclaimed site have been analyzed, and three years of data

from the natural site are being analyzed at present. Continued monitoring

of all watersheds in year three. A separate request for funds has been

submitted to continue this important work for years three, four, and five.

Progress for each task and its subtasks are presented next.





4








TASK 1A. Stream and Drainage Basin Characteristics


Robert E. Tighe


The main objectives of this task are to measure the physical
characteristics of stream networks and drainage basins, develop indices of
organization, and relate hydrologic characteristics to physical
characteristics and organization.


INTRODUCTION

In the second year of research three primary topics were studied in

this task of the project. The first was expansion of the database of

physical characteristics of stream networks and their drainage basins.

Second was analysis of the effects of map scale on those characteristics.

And third was analysis of streamflow data. Data collection for the first

topic has been completed at this time, while the second two are well

underway and within the second year's timetable.

Discussion of the goals of this research and the methodology employed

has already been given in the first annual report (Brown and Best, 1984)

and will thus only be reviewed as necessary for understanding of the work

described in this report.


Study Areas

The primary study areas were drainage basins in central and north

central Florida, as shown in Figures 1 and 2. Measurement of some

parameters was also made in other areas of the State, but detailed

analysis was limited to the primary study areas.




























































Figure 1. Primary drainage basins studied in central Florida.




6




./ .1 NORTH













0
./ \ p*



-~ -GA
FL

GA S atee


FL F


location map







S- Basin boundary
0 20 40 o/
I I a ) Streams
Scale (miles)


Figure 2. Northcentral Florida study area (Suwannee River basin).








METHODS

Measurement of Stream and Basin Parameters

The basic parameters measured for all drainage basins were basin

area, relief, and average slope; stream length and slope; and

order/magnitude, a term which may be applied to the stream network or the

entire basin. Methods for measuring all of the above parameters except

order/magnitude have been described in the previous report, and were

utilized in the same manner in the continuing investigation.


Order/magnitude

The use of the Horton/Strahler ordering system has also been

described in the previous report, and has been continued for the entire

study. It was discovered, however, that another system might provide a

better description of stream networks and drainage basins, and since it is

easily used in conjunction with the Horton/Strahler system, the concept of

"magnitude" as first put forth by Shreve (1966) was added to the analysis.

Simply put, the magnitude of a stream at any given point is

equivalent to the number of unbranched tributary streams Horton/Strahler

first order streams that are ultimately tributary to it. Magnitude is

an additive concept; whereas stream order does not increase until a like-

ordered stream is joined, magnitude increases at every stream junction.

As with orders, when two streams of magnitude one join, a stream of

magnitude two is formed. But unlike orders, the junction of another

magnitude one stream increases the magnitude to three, and so on with any

stream confluence. An example comparing orders and magnitude is given in

Figure 3, which shows the stream network for the Little Manatee River from

1:250,000 topo maps. Magnitudes created at junctions are given in

parentheses, while orders are given with numerals not in parentheses.



























(l,Zi.i^)


Figure 3. Little Manatee River basin showing magnitude (in parentheses) and order for
stream segments.








The preceding procedure was used for all basins analyzed. For any

given basin, the description used is a series of numbers separated by

commas, as shown at the mouth of the entire network shown in Figure 3.

The numbers represent the total number of streams of each Horton/Strahler

order within the basin, in descending order. For example, the network in

Figure 3 is designated as (1,2,12,46), and is fourth order there are

four numbers separated by the commas. This network thus has one fourth

order stream (the entire network), 2 third order streams, 12 second order

streams, and 46 first order streams. The last number is always the number

of first order streams and is also the magnitude of the stream.

There are two basic reasons that magnitude may be a better descriptor

of a stream network than orders, each of which deals with the analysis of

other stream and basin parameters. First, order tells nothing about the

structure of a basin. Magnitude, on the other hand, tells precisely the

number of segments and junctions in the basin:


(Magnitude)= # of external segments (1st order streams)

(Magnitude-1)= # of junctions in the network

((2*Magnitude)-l)= total # of segments in the network


Thus, magnitude describes the structure of a basin, and while it says

nothing about the arrangement of segments in the basin, nor the lengths

and slopes of the individual segments, those characteristics should be

provided by other analyses in this research.

The foregoing is particularly relevant to the engineer in the field

who must design and implement a drainage network. To say that a

reclamation area of a given size is suitable for a third order network is

meaningless from a structural standpoint but to say that for the same








area the magnitude of the network should be about 13 provides a basis for

site design.

The second advantage of magnitude over order is that magnitude may be

determined for any segment in a stream network, while order is only useful

for describing a complete basin. This is particularly significant when

analysis of streamflow data from a gaging station is desired. Unless such

a gage is located at or near the mouth of a particular order basin then

order analysis is useless; the magnitude, however, may easily be

determined at that point.


Effect of Map Scale

It may be seen that the scale of map used for analysis may greatly

affect certain stream measurements, particularly length, slope, and

order. Basin measurements are less sensitive to differences in scale.

Smaller map scales show less detail, thus the information regarding

smaller streams may be lost, or subject to greater error. This is

particularly true when the results of analysis are to be translated to

the field for reclamation purposes.

Leopold and Miller (1956) were the first investigators to

quantitatively show the effect of map scale on drainage basin analyses.

In a study of Western U.S. streams they determined orders and physical

characteristics of the stream networks. For one study basin at a scale of

2"=1 mile, they chose one basin for further analysis which showed as a

first order tributary at that scale. Field investigation, measuring and

counting all branches in this 'first order' basin, showed it to be in

reality fifth order. They concluded that "the true order of any stream

determined from the (smaller scale) map ... is increased by adding 4, so








that an order one stream on that map becomes order 1+4, or 5" (Leopold and

Miller, 1956).

Yang and Stall (1971) continued on the earlier study and showed that

all streams and basin parameters determined at one scale can be

transferred to another scale, based on a conversion factor, "d". Using

1:62,500 and 1:250,000 scale maps of the same basin, they obtained the

usual graphs of stream order versus such parameters as stream length,

drainage area, etc. By overlaying the best-fit lines obtained from the

two scales for any one parameter, they showed that there was a common

order difference the factor "d" for all parameters. They concluded

that all the basic relationships of basin geometry could thereby be

transferred between scales by "d", determined for any basin.

The significance of these findings for the present study lies in both

the collection of data and in the utilization of the results of this

research in field situations. Certainly the smaller the scale of map that

can be used for data collection, the more data can be collected with the

least effort. And further, if the indices determined in this study can be

translated between maps of different scales, then it may also be possible

to translate the data to actual field scale i.e., 1:1 and thus be of

the most use to the reclamation engineer.

A commonly used scale of map is 1"=200' (1:2400), which is 10 times

larger than the USGS quad maps. Maps at this scale show more detail, but

are cumbersome to use for large volume data collection. Thus, if a

translation between this scale and a smaller scale can be accomplished,

then data collection and use by the engineer can be greatly facilitated.

As a starting basis for studying the above situation, maps at the

scales of 1:100,000 and 1:250,000 were used in addition to the quad maps.

Many basins were selected for overlap of measurement at either two or all









three scales. Stream and basin parameters determined at the different

scales will be matched against each other, and determination of

appropriate scaling factors made. The next step to be accomplished in the

final quarter of this year's study will be to add maps at the 1:2400

scale, and thus complete the range of scales used for analysis.



Streamflow Data

Network of Gaging Stations

A large number of gaging stations, with data from USGS Water Resource

Records and some provided by several mining companies, is being analyzed

for correlation of streamflow with other basin parameters. The most

densely gaged basin is that of the Peace River, with 22 stations arranged

as shown in Figure 4. The stations are listed in Table 1, along with

drainage area at each gage and period of record.

In addition to streamflow, rainfall is also being analyzed for its

effect on the variability of flow. Some twenty rain stations in the

central Florida area are being used for this analysis.



RESULTS

Stream and Basin Characteristics

Results of the detailed analysis of the Alafia, Manatee, Peace, and

Suwannee River basins are given in Tables 2 through 5. Tributary streams

are indented one space from their parent streams. The second column, "#

of streams of order:", follows the same format as outlined above. That

is, for any stream the order may be determined by following up from

whichever column the numeral "1" is found, to the six subcolumns 6 through










... Basin divide
- Stream channel
* PR1 Gaging station


A,


Figure 4. Stream gaging stations in the Peace River basin. (Stations are
listed in Table 1.)












Table 1. Key to gaging stations shown in Figure 4.


Drainage Period
Area of
# Station (km2) Record Source


Peace R. @ Arcadia
@ Zolfo Sprinas
S(MCC-WL8)
@ Ft. Meade
Shell Cr. near Punta Gorda
Charlie Cr. near Gardner
Prairie Cr. near Ft. OQden
Horse Cr. near Arcadia
Joshua Cr. @ Nocatee
Payne Cr. near Eowlina Green
(CF-WQ3)
Bowl eas Cr. (MCC-WL2)
(MCC-WL1)
Little Charley Bowleos Cr.
Horse Cr. near Myakka Head
Pavne Cr. (CF-W02)
Horse Cr. (CF-WU1 1)
Oak Cr. near Ona
Gum Swamp Br. (CF-WU4)
Gilshev Br. (MCC-WL5)
Unnamed Cr. (MCC-WL3)
Unnamed Cr. (MCC-WL4)


3540.0
2139.0
1530.0
1204.0
966. 0
855.0
603. 0
565.0
342.0
313.4
147.6
145.0
121.7
108.5
106.2
67.3
46.4
38.9
25.4
8.5
4.4
3.6


1931-present
1933-present
1979-1980
1974-present
1965-present
1950-present
1977-present
1950-present
1950-present
1979-present
1981-1982
1979-1980
1979-1980
1952-1983
1977-prespnt
1981-1982
1981-1982
1981-present
1981-1982
1979-1980
1979-1980
1979-1980


Source 1. U.S. Geological Survey reports
2. Mobil Chemical Co.
3. CF Minina Corp.





15








Table 2. Stream and basin measurements for the Alafia River basin.



Basin Bastn Basin Stream Stream
of streams o4 orders Area Relief Length 8ope Length Slope
Stream 6 5 4 3 2 1 (m12) (ft) (ml) (4t/mi) (mi) (ft/mi)
-----------^----------------------
Alfl- River 1 3 12 51 254 960 420.00 260 30.4 8.6 41.9 3.3
Buckhorn Cr. 1 6 23 8.27 127 4.0 31.9 4.5 11.6
Bell Cr. 1 3 14 56 21.00 146 7.2 20.3 7.4 10.2
BL 1 1 2 0.63 73 1.1 64.0 1.0 51.8
BL 2 1 2 0.17 64 0.7 88.9 0.5 116.6
BL 3 1 3 0.64 61 1.1 53.5 0.9 44.0
Pelleham Br. 1 2 8 4.26 67 2.8 23.6 2.9 18.5
BL 4 1 0.12 49 0.5 92.5 0.3 143.3
BL 5 1 3 0.73 50 1.3 37.6 1.3 34.4
Boggy Cr. 1 2 B 3.66 101 4.6 22.2 3.8 21.9
BL 6 1 5 2.67 97 2.9 33.2 2.8 24.2
Fishhawk Cr. 1 3 11 54 25.50 141 9.5 14.9 10.2 11.6
Doe Br. 1 3 11 4.74 60 3.6 16.7 3.9 11.5
DB 1 1 3 1.98 43 2.1 20.7 1.9 15.1
Long Flat Cr. 1 3 10 6.28 74 3.6 20.6 3.6 17.1
Pringle Dr. 1 3 10 5.27 92 4.6 20.2 3.9 17.9
Little Fishhawk Cr. 1 4 12 5.48 100 3.8 26.4 4.8 18.7
LF I I 2 0.46 45 0.6 70.3 0.5 71.1
Little Ala4la R. 1 2 8 31 107 42.70 128 8.1 15.7 8.4 13.4
Turkey Cr. 1 4 17 55 19.00 130 7.3 17.8 7.2 9.1
McCullough Br. 1 5 1.56 88 2.5 34.6 2.4 33.2
McDonald Br. 1 2 6 1.76 90 1.9 46.6 1.7 45.0
North Prong 1 4 18 86 314 140.00 231 15.2 15.2 17.8 5.9
Sloman Br. 1 2 10 2.13 77 2.4 32.8 2.1 28.8
Thirtymile Cr. 1 7 30 14.30 108 6.6 16.3 7.1 13.6
English Cr. 1 3 14 71 37.20 101 9.3 10.9 7.5 8.8
EC 1 1 2 10 4.15 56 3.0 18.5 2.3 16.9
EC 2 1 2 0.59 51 1.6 32.1 1.2 38.8
EC 3 1 5 1.81 56 2.6 21.7 2.0 21.9
EC 4 1 3 1.62 58 2.2 26.9 1.8 24.2
Howell Br. 1 5 21 8.86 82 5.3 15.5 4.3 14.4
Hamilton Br. 1 5 3.63 44 2.7 16.1 3.2 9.6
Poley'Cr. 1 5 22 71 29.20 95 7.8 12.2 7.2 8.7
PO 1 1 3 0.51 49 1.1 43.0 0.8 46.5
PO 2 1 4 1.76 68 2.4 28.9 2.0 24.4
PO 3 1 2 0.37 48 1.1 45.3 0.7 50.0
PO 4 1 2 8 2.43 48 2.0 23.9 2.1 18.2
South Prong 1 4 14 72 266 135.00 141 18.2 7.7 25.8 4.6
SP 1 1 3 0.57 82 1.6 52.2 0.8 80.5
SP 2 1 2 0.32 74 1.3 58.3 0.8 71.9
SP 3 1 2 0.16 60 0.8 73.2 0.6 63.3
West Br. 1 3 8 3.68 125 4.8 26.2 4.2 25.1
SP 4 1 0.13 59 0.8 78.7 0.4 118.9
Mizelle Cr. 1 2 13 5.21 128 5.5 23.2 4.8 23.1
SP 5 1 2 0.35 65 1.2 54.6 0.5 80.8
SP 6 1 2 1.00 72 1.8 40.2 1.5 40.2
SP 7 1 3 0.41 79 1.2 66.4 0.7 73.0
Chito Br. 1 3 13 6.73 77 3.9 19.8 5.4 10.5
Owens Br. 1 2 7 3.30 121 3.4 36.0 2.8 37.5
Halls Br. 1 5 1.91 114 2.8 41.3 3.0 37.6
SP 8 1 0.26 84 1.0 86.6 0.8 79.1
SP 9 1 2 0.55 102 1.5 68.5 1.2 65.5
SP 10 1 2 0.32 93 1.1 83.(0 0.8 77.7
McMullen Br. 1 2 6 1.88 100 2.7 37.3 1.6 41.9
Pollard Br. I (0.65 68 1.3 50.7 1.2 52.9
SP 11 1 2 0.35 59 1.0 56.7 0.8 52.4
Dogleg Dr. 1 2 0.42 72 1.0 69.2 0.9 58.1
Hurrah Cr. 1 2 6 25 10.70 65 5.5 11.8 5.6 9.8
SP 12 1 3 0.49 65 1.2 54.6 1.0 51.6
SP 13 1 0.32 72 0.9 80.9 0.7 77.5
Boggy Br. 1 2 4 13 7.30 97 4.4 22.0 4.5 19.0
Gully Br. 1 2 5 2.92 90 3.7 24.1 3.9 15.0
SP 14 1 0.15 52 0.6 86.7 0.5 78.2
SP 15 1 0.14 41 0.5 91.1 0.5 64.8
SP 16 1 0.80 55 1.6 35.0 1.0 39.2
SP 17 1 3 9 3.04 46 3.0 15.4 3.7 8.6
SP 16 1 4 1.37 43 1.9 23.1 1.6 17.1
SP 19 1 2 0.27 36 0.9 40.4 0.8 20.2
Lake Br. 1 3 9 31 19.40 83 6.9 12.0 8.1 7.6
LB 1 1 2 4 4.83 72 3.7 19.3 3.0 22.1
LB 2 1 2 6 1.05 60 2.0 29.9 1.0 28.7
LF I 3 10 7.53 61 4.2 14.6 3.7 In.7















Table 3. Stream and basin measurements for the Manatee River basin.


Stream


# of streams of order:
6 5 4 3 2 1


Manatee River
MR 1
MR 2
Little Ft. Crawford
MR 3
MR 4
Webb Br.
MR 5
MR 6
MR 7
MR 8
MR 9
MR 10
MR 11
North Fork
MN 1
MN 2
MN 3
MN 4
MN 5
MN 6
MN 6a
MN 6b
MN 6c
MN 6d
MN 7
East Fork
ME 1
ME 2
ME 3
ME 4
ME 5
ME 6
ME 7
ME 8
ME 9


Basin
Area Relief
(mi2) (ft)


Basin
Length
(mi)


Basin
Slope
(ft/mi)


Stream
Length
(mi)


Stream
Slope
(ft/mi)


357.00 135 40.6 3.3 52.8 2.6
1 2 0.40 65 1.3 50.0 1.4 40.0
1 0.07 41 0.5 82.0 0.3 93.3
1 7 2.20 67 2.0 33.5 2.3 16.1
1 2 0.38 62 1.3 47.7 1.1 47.3
1 2 0.23 48 0.9 53.3 0.5 62.0
1 2 0.44 47 1.1 42.7 1.1 27.3
1 3 1.09 57 1.7 33.5 1.0 44.0
1 0.33 55 1.1 50.0 0.6 75.0
1 0.24 43 0.9 47.8 0.6 63.6
1 0.13 56 0.6 93.3 0.3 86.7
1 2 6 2.94 66 2.6 25.4 2.6 21.2
1 2 0.27 53 0.9 58.9 0.8 61.3
1 2 0.18 52 0.8 65.0 0.6 56.7
1 -3 13 73 31.80 81 12.0 6.8 14.8 5.2
1 0.25 45 1.1 40.9 0.6 51.2
1 0.56 53 1.6 33.3 1.1 33.7
1 0.13 45 0.6 73.8 0.4 72.0
1 0.37 39 1.0 38.2 0.7 42.5
1 2 5 2.67 58 2.5 23.6 1.9 26.4
1 5 23 9.12 52 4.2 12.5 5.2 9.8
1 6 2.42 35 2.8 12.3 3.0 10.8
1 4 1.28 30 1.9 15.9 1.8 13.5
1 7 2.97 37 3.0 12.5 3.3 10.8
1 4 1.33 38 1.7 22.4 1.3 22.6
1 3 1.18 18 1.9 9.5 1.9 6.7
1 3 14 52 26.90 82 11.7 7.0 14.7 5.3
1 0.24 45 0.8 54.2 0.6 54.5
1 0.17 50 0.8 60.2 0.5 81.2
1 0.50 45 1.3 34.9 0.8 44.0
1 3 1.56 36 2.0 17.9 1.9 16.4
1 0.13 35 0.6 54.7 0.5 1.6b
1 0.15 36 0.8 47.4 0.5 49.0
1 0.13 31 0.7 45.6 0.5 40.6
1 0.42 31 1.0 32.6 0.8 31.7
1 2 4 2.78 45 3.2 14.0 3.2 11.8











Table 4. Stream and basin measurements for the Peace River basin.


# of streams of order:
6 5 4 3 2 1


Basin
Area Relief
(mi2) (ft)


Basin
Length
(mi)


Basin
Slope
(ft/mi)


Stream Stream
Length Slope
(mi) (ft/mi)


Peace River
Oak Cr.
Hickory Cr.
Troublesome Cr.
East Br.
West Br.
PR 10
Hickory Br.
Thompson Br.
PR 9
PR 8
Max Br.
PR 7
PR 6
Little Charlie Cr.
Lake Dale Br.
PR 5
PR 4
Hog Br.
PR 3
Payne Cr.
Little Payne Cr.
LP 1
LP 2
LP 3
Upper Payne
Coon's Bay Br.
Plunder Br.
Olive Br.
PC 1
Hickey Br.
Doe Br.
Shirttail Br.
Gum Swamp Br.
PR 2
Gilshey Br.
PR 1
Gurr Run
Stephen's Br.
Bowlegs Cr.
Maron Run


2400.00 175 87.0 2.0 100.0 1.0
1 4 12 46 18.30 84 9.5 8.8 10.4 31.4
1 4 23 7.03 83 7.7 10.8 7.5 9.3
1 2 15 67 18.60 92 10.7 8.6 10.8 6.7
1 3 13 3.47 49 3.5 13.9 2.7 14.7
1 4 15 7.57 41 6.0 6.9 4.8 6.0
1 4 11 1.44 83 2.5 33.2 2.2 33.2
1 2 11 2.15 71 2.6 27.7 2.4 21.0
1 9 28 7.18 91 5.0 18.1 4.5 17.7
1 6 30 4.77 73 3.3 21.9 4.2 14.4
1 2 12 1.30 88 1.7 50.6 2.2 37.1
1 2 10 29 5.44 77 4.1 18.6 3.9 12.8
1 2 0.28 74 0.9 81.3 0.9 72.6
1 2 0.22 76 0.8 91.6 0.4 134.6
1 5 29 123 45.90 102 11.1 9.2 10.3 5.5
1 7 31 8.40 68 5.2 13.1 3.7 12.2
1 3 0.69 86 1.4 61.4 1.4 53.5
1 2 0.49 75 1.2 62.0 1.0 66.0
1 3 25 6.49 78 3.0 26.0 4.3 11.7
1 2 6 0.99 72 1.7 42.4 1.5 40.9
1 2 11 53 229 123.00 96 18.8 5.1 19.1 4.0
1 3 17 72 38.00 92 13.5 6.8 14.4 5.1
1 4 1.65 68 2.3 29.6 1.8 26.6
1 3 12 3.31 67 3.2 20.9 1.8 19.3
1 5 0.43 49 0.9 54.4 0.8 59.1
1 8 35 149 81.00 92 16.9 5.4 16.6 4.5
1 3 7 1.94 59 2.8 21.1 1.7 20.4
1 2 6 5.60 50 4.0 12.5 1.7 14.6
1 3 2.55 59 3.3 17.9 2.5 21.9
1 2 1.49 51 2.4 21.3 1.2 24.0
1 2 12 6.72 58 4.0 14.5 3.2 10.9
1 4 11 9.23 36 5.5 6.5 2.9 3.4
1 2 7 3.79 39 3.5 11.1 3.2 8.4
1. 4 24 9.88 43 5.4 8.0 3.3 7.0
1 2 7 1.35 72 3.0 24.0 2.7 24.4
1 3 20 3.25 80 3.1 25.8 3.2 23.2
1 3 18 4.79 84 4.3 19.5 4.1 15.7
1 8 1.31 74 2.6 28.5 2.4 28.4
1 2 9 1.52 72 2.5 28.8 2.3 27.8
1 2 9 30 136 71.00 72 9.9 7.3 12.6 8.1
1 2 6 1.83 58 2.4 24.2 1.6 28.3


Stream






18













Table 5. Stream and basin measurements for the Suwannee River basin.


* of streams of orders
6 5 4 3 2 1


Basin Basin Basin Stream Stream
Area Relief Length Slope Length Slope
(mi2) (ft) (mi) (ft/mi) (mi) (ft/mi)


Suwannee River
Four Mile Br.
Robinson Br.
RB 1
RB 2
RB 3
RB 4
RB 5
RB 6
RB 7
RB A
SU 11
SU 10
Long Br.
SU 9
Deep Cr.
Brown's Br.
DC 2
DC 3
DC 4
DC 5
DC 6
Little Br.
Sandy Drain
Caney Flat Br.
Camp Br.
SU 8
SU 7
SU 6
SU 5
SU 4
SU 3
SU 3a
SU 3b
I i t Ir Cr.
LC 1
LC 2
LC 3
LC 4
LC 5
LC 6
LC 7
LC 8
LC 9
LC 10
SU 2
Roaring Cr.
RC I
RC 2
RC 3
RC 4
Bay Cr.
BC 1
BC 2
BC 3
BC 4
BC 5
BC 6
sU 1


1













1 2 i


1 4
6 34
1 2
I 4
1


1 3
1



1 4
1 4
1
I
I 3






1 3






2 7
I 4






1 2
1 255
I 5
1







1 6
1
1
1 3





2 7
2 6
1 2
1 2


1 2



5 17
1 2


I

1 2
1 2
1 2




1 2




1 2



1 3


9995.00
4.54
32.60
1.02
1.54
0.43
1.00
0.25
0.43
1.84
0.73
1.38
0.68
1.86
2.15
104.00
3.23
0.99
0.15
7.84
0.93
3.28
1.05
6.77
11.80
11.80
1.65
0.90
0.06
0.32
1.54
2.47
0.28
0.13
40.00
0.52
0.07
0.96
0.18
0.27
0.34
1.02
0.08
3.24
3.68
1.02
22.50
1.19
0.29
2.91
2.25
10.90
0.24
0.22
1.80
0.66
0.15
1.64
3.50


140.0
3.6
13.1
1.5
2.1
1.3
1.6
1.0
1.1
2.5
1.6
2.1
1.6
2.7
2.4
19.0
3.9
2.0
0.6
5.0
2.5
3.7
1.9
4.2
6.8
6.3
2.0
2.4
0.5
1.0
2.3
3.9
1.1
0.6
9.9
1.4
0.3
1.4
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.7
0.5
3.3
3.5
2.7

2.4
1.0
2.9
2.3
5.5
0.6
0.7
2.5
1.6
0.8
2.2
3.8


----------------------------------------- -------------


Stream


1.1 236.0 0.5
18.7 4.7 13.8
7.6 24.3 7.7
27.6 2.9 33.4
26.0 3.2 28.0
34.6 1.9 47.3
23.3 3.6 24.3
40.8 1.0 66.0
31.8 1.3 34.5
16.0 2.3 20.6
18.9 1.9 25.0
24.5 1.9 23.3
38.1 2.1 25.9
23.8 2.2 26.4
26.4 2.5 23.2
4.1 28.8 4.8
14.7 9.2 11.2
25.2 3.2 23.7
56.5 1.0 66.0
9.7 5.8 15.7
17.3 2.6 25.4
12.6 6.0 13.0
13.4 1.5 13.9
8.1 4.8 6.9
6.5 9.7 4.0
6.3 4.7 4.2
32.0 1.1 42.2
21.3 1.9 22.3
75.5 0.4 76.8
46.3 0.9 46.2
22.5 2.0 23.4
14.1 2.6 18.4
15.1 0.5 22.0
18.8 0.5 22.6
6.6 4.5 8.0
29.4 0.6 47.5
94.1 0.3 83.0
27.1 0.8 36.0
40.0 0.2 96.8
27.6 0.4 55.4
27.6 0.5 40.6
15.9 0.8 9.6
48.9 0.3 37.7
6.7 1.8 9.5
6.3 3.1 5.4
21.1 2.6 17.9

15.9 1.3 22.6
35.7 0.8 37.7
13.2 2.5 13.0
15.4 1.3 17.1
8.9 3.0 12.0
31.6 0.4 44.5
37.5 0.5 47.1
11.4 1.7 10.6
15.5 1.4 12.5
22.4 0.5 28.6
7.4 1.4 6.6
14.0 2.1 20.6








1. The magnitude of a stream is the number found under the subcolumn "1".

For example, the Alafia River (Table 2) is order 6, and magnitude 960.

Initial regression of various parameters within and among the several

basins are shown in Figures 5 through 9. While great variability was

found in many of the analyses, general patterns were found which suggest

relationships that may be useful for basin design.

Drainage area generally correlates well with magnitude. A nearly one-

to-one relationship occurs; that is, there is one first magnitude (or

order) stream segment for every square kilometer of basin. This

relationship is shown for the Peace and Suwannee Rivers in Figures 5 and

6, with a less clear relationship shown for smaller basins. When all

basins in the Peace basin are graphed (Figure 5) a close relationship is

seen. But when basins under 20 km2 are plotted (Figure 5), much more

scatter is obtained. The same may be seen for the Suwannee River (Figure

6), first for basins under 50 km2, and then just basins less than 10 km2.

Both the slopes and the lengths of drainage basins correlate very

well with the same features of the main streams in the basins. Figure 7

shows the relation between basin and stream slope for the Peace River

basins, while Figure 8 shows the length relationships for all streams.

Both graphs show nearly a one-to-one relationship suggesting that the

slope of a basin has a very strong influence on the form of the resultant

stream that drains it; that is, a stream will adjust its hydraulic

geometry as needed to match the basin it drains. This is particularly

significant when it is remembered that most drainage basins have a large

area of headwaters with no stream channel. Thus, given a distance

substantially less than the entire basin length, a stream will adjust

itself to match the length and slope of the basin, as measured straight

from end to end.











240-

220 -

200 -

180 -

160 -

140 -

120 -

100 -

80 -

60 -

40-

20 -

0


I I I I I


40 80 120 160 200

Drainage area (km2)


I I
240


20I
280


320


Basins less, than 20 km2
D
rl
















Cn
0




D n

-



a
a a
I I


--I-- I I -
2 4


6 8

Drainage


10

oreoa


12

(km2)


S I I I I 2
14 16 18 20


Figure 5. -Drainage area plotted against magnitude for subbasin of the
Peace River.


Peace River Basin
All basins, area v. magnitude









C3

a







al


30-

28-

26-

24-

22-

20-

18

16

14

12

10-

8-

6-

4-

2
0


I Y . .










Suwannee R.
Basin area v. magnitude
---- --- -- ---- -----


D



a
D


26-

24 -

22 -

20 -

18-

16-

14-

12-

10-

8-

6-

4-

2-

0


a Dn
0 010
0 In a D
a 00
E 00

F 0


4


0E

00
a 0
0m a
I----,


8 12 16 20

Drainage area (km2)


D0

D m
a

a a


I I 2 I
24 28


0
am
a m


4 6

Drainage area (km2)


I I
8


Figure 6. Drainage area plotted against magnitude
Suwannee River.


for subbasin of the


- 0
-


00 0


24 -

22 -

20 -

18-
i-
16-

14-

12-

10-

8-

6-

4-

2-

0-


----
















Peace River Basin
Basin slope v. stream slope












- 4a

a

a
0 0



a 13 C
C
a

I I Ifa
a I I"n


26

24

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0


8 10
Basin slope (m/km)


Figure 7. Basin slope plotted against stream slope for subbasin of the Peace River.


I I
4 6


I I I
0 2


12 14
12 14


I 1
16







Basin


versus


stream lengths


4 8 12 16 20 24 28


Basin length


32


(mi)


Basin length plotted against stream length for subbasins from all study areas.


45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0


Figure 8.









Peace River Basin
Basins <10 km2, area v. stream slope


S 1.9
1.9


II I


2.1


2.5


log drainage area (ho)


Suwannee R
Log cream v. stream slopl


0 E










13 LI o103L
S
Ia DD


D D


S0 a

D D o DOD D
a0 0

13 (3 1
~~~1 ,13


1.4 1.8


2.2


2.6


2.7


2.9


B


3


3.4


Log droinoge area (ho)


Figure 9. Drainage area plotted against stream slope for the Peace River
(upper plot, log-log) and Suwannee River (lower plot, semi-log) subbasins
<10 km2 (1000 ha).


1.4 -

1.3 -

1.2-

1.1 -

1-

0.9 -

0.8 -

0.7 -

0. -

0.5 -

0.4-

0.3 -


a
LI







13 n 13
L-Ir


0.2


19-
18
17-
16
15
14-i
13
12
11
10-
9-
8 -
7
6
5-
4-
3-
2-
1-
0


2.3









In Figure 9 the slope of streams is plotted against the area of

drainage basins, for basins less than 10 km2 in the Suwannee and Peace

Rivers. In the upper diagram, the plot is semi-logarithmic, with slope

plotted against the log of area, while the bottom plot is log-log. Both

show an exponential relationship with increasing stream slope for

decreasing basin size. The plot is similar to that obtained by plotting

the longitudinal profile of an individual stream, which generally shows an

upward concavity with decreasing slope in the downstream direction.

These preliminary plots show some general trends among the data,

while full analysis will be completed in the final quarter of the study.

The results will be a description of the physical parameters a reclamation

engineer will need to consider in site design, and the appropriate

measurements to use in that design.


Streamflow

As an example of the types of analyses being used for streamflow

data, Figure 10 compares data from two stations within the Peace River

basin. The upper graph shows mean month flow for six years (1976-1981)

on Little Charley Bowlegs Creek near Sebring. The lower plot shows the

same data for the Peace River at Arcadia. The first station drains 108

square kilometers and the second 3540 km2, and the scales are different by

nearly three orders of magnitude, but the hydrographs show the same

patterns of flow variation from month to month and year to year.

The two basins are compared in Figure 11, which shows the monthly

runoff from the two basins in 1979. Runoff takes into account the basin

size, and thus may be used to compare data from all sized basins.

Rainfall from six stations in central Florida is shown in Figure 12,

which shows annual rain for an eight year period (1974-1981), and the








Little Charlie near
Mean monthly flow


Sebring


Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec


Peace R. at
Mean monthly


Arcadia
flow


I I I I I I I I I I 1 I
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec


771 1976

S 1979


1 1977

EXQ 1980


M 1971

I 1981


Figure 10. Average monthly flow (1976-1981) at Little Charley Bowlegs Creek
(upper graph) and the Peace River at Arcadia (lower graph).


400


350


300


250


200


150


100


50


0















Peace R.
Comparison of


Jan Feb Mar Apr


V71 Peace R. 0 Arcadia



Figure 11. Monthly runoff (cm)
at Arcadia, 1979.


May


Jun Jul Aug
1979


Sep Oct Nov
Sep Oct Nov


Dec
Dec


=- Little Charlie


for Little Charley Bowlegs Creek and the Peace River


Basin
runoff


/Xn
-N
/\^ \ F/L


4--


y7 [T


F6 FZ


I -


=~ I. I .... ... If I


J


''""'`


U U











180
170
180
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0




80



50



40



30


Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1981 rain for central FL.


[7 Arcadia

SRFt. Green


rs Avon Park

2M Myakka R.


Bartow

g Parrish


Figure 12. Annual rainfall at 6 stations in central Florida (1974-1981,
upper graph), and monthly rain at the same stations (1981, lower graph).


1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
Annual rain In central FL-









monthly rainfall for 1981. Rainfall data will be used to determine runoff

coefficients for gaging stations, based on the distribution of rainfall

from all stations above the gage in question. Weighted averages of

rainfall for each station is determined using a Thiessen distribution

(Gilman, 1964).

The results of this analysis will show the expected patterns of

stream flow for various sized basins, based on the physical parameters as

determined above.


BIBLIOGRAPHY


Brown, M.T. and G.R. Best. 1984. Development of techniques and
guidelines for reclamation of phosphate mined lands as diverse
landscapes and complete hydrologic units. First annual report to the
Florida Institute for Phosphate Research, FIPR Contract #83-03-044,
Center For Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Gilman, C.S. 1964. Rainfall. Pp. 9-1 9-68 in V.T. Chow (ed.).
Handbook of Applied Hydrology. McGraw-Hill: NY.

Leopold, L.B. and J.P. Miller. 1956. Ephemeral streams hydraulic
factors and their relation to the drainage net. U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper 282-A.

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

Yang, C.T. and J.B. Stall. 1971. Note on the map scale effect in the
study of stream morphology. Water Resources Research 7(3):709-712.


~_~l_~i~ ~_l~~~i__ i ~I








TASK lB. Characteristics of Drainage Basins and Regional
Landscape Associations in North and Central Florida


Mona Sullivan


The main objective of this task is to define the physical
characteristics and develop indices of organization for drainage basins in
North and Central Florida. Specifically, this task is determining the
differences in landscape composition between headwater, mid, and lower
reaches within and between basins, the distribution of wetlands within
basins and reaches, wetland storage capacity of basins, and relationships
of these parameters to timing and amount of discharge from basins.



INTRODUCTION

Measurements of basin and wetland area were taken from maps of

selected drainage basins in order to quantify the relationship that exists

between these parameters and upland area.

Extent and level of man-induced disturbance within basin boundaries

were the criteria used for study area selection. A total sample of 21

tributary drainage basins and 11 tributary subbasins were mapped. These

areas were chosen from the basins of the Anclote, Kissimmee, Manatee,

Ochlockonee, Peace, Pithlachascotee, St. Johns, St. Marys, Suwannee, and

Withlacoochee Rivers. Their approximate locations are shown in Figure 1.

Area measurements have been made on a subset of this sample and analyzed

for this report.



METHODS

Basin Order

The drainage basin classification system used is an extension of the

revised Horton stream classification system (Horton 1945, Strahler 1957).

A stream of given order is contained in a drainage basin of the same

order. Basins studied were divided into two levels: tributary basin and


~i




















Flord.a
study Areas;


U STUDY AREA


Manatee
River


0 100 200
Kilometers


.s


Figure 1. Approximate location of study areas.


- .._.. --~----- -------- ------ -- --------- -- -- ------------------- --- --- -----.-r--~_l-_i;~;E;~I;IF==L=~;;3;~L~~








tributary subbasin. This was done to arrange the data in levels exhibited

in the networks of major river systems. 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.



Basin Magnitude

This classification is based on a system developed by Shreve (1966),

explained fully in the section covering Task la.



Basin and Subbasin Delineation

Topographic delineation of drainage basin and subbasin boundaries

entails the highlighting of natural ridges or top of man-made features as

reflected in contour line patterns (Foose 1980). Where possible, basin

boundaries shown on U.S. Geological Survey drainage basin maps were used.

These maps are blueline ozalid copies of originals drawn on the 1:24,000-

scale 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles. Adjustments were made, where

necessary, to reflect only natural divides. Basin boundaries not

available from the USGS were drawn using comparable methods.



Reach Delineation

A reach is defined as a length of stream having relatively consistent

slope, and is delineated in the same manner as drainage basins. Profiles

of stream elevation were used to determine reach boundaries by defining

points where the trend in slope changes. For consistency in

classification and comparison, three reaches were delineated in each

tributary drainage basin studied: headwater, mid, and lower reaches.









Photo Interpretation and Wetland Delineation

Wetland maps were constructed using topographic quadrangles from the

7.5-minute USGS series as base maps. Other reference maps obtained from

the USGS were used to define basin boundaries.

Blackline ozalid copies of quad-centered 1:24,000-scale 1972-73 Mark

Hurd aerial photography were used to draw wetland boundaries.

Interpretation of wetland signatures on these photos was accomplished by

referring to color-infrared 1:58,000-scale 1983-84 National High Altitude

Program (NHAP) transparencies and prints, and color-infrared 1:52,000-

scale 1972-73 Mark Hurd prints.

Using these maps, a 1:24,000-scale map showing wetlands and stream

channel was drafted for each drainage basin or subbasin selected for

study. Only exterior boundaries of wetlands were delineated. Points of

high ground within wetlands were not shown.

Each wetland was classified into two major classes according to

dominant cover (forested, shrub/nonforested), and relative hydrologic

position with respect to the stream channel (perched, riverine). Wetlands

having no direct topographic connection with the floodplain were

classified as perched.



Digitization and Statistical Analyses

The wetland maps were reduced from the draft scale for ease of area

measurement on the digitizer. Due to the great difference in basin sizes,

three working scales were necessary: 1:24,000, 1:33,000, 1:54,000. Basin

and wetland boundaries were digitized using a Complot Series 7000

digitizer and Zenith Z-100 microcomputer. Basin, reach, subbasin, and








wetland areas were calculated and compiled, along with data identifying

wetland type, basin or subbasin order, and reach.



Topographic Characterization

Representative basins were chosen to illustrate the topographic

character of drainage basins of a given order. The basins chosen all have

a relatively normal stream channel. That is, the channels are not braided

and the overall drainage network is relatively intact.

Three transverse cross-sections were located along the length of each

basin, approximately perpendicular to the stream channel. One cross-

section was located in each of the three reaches in those basins large

enough to have reaches. One longitudinal cross-section was located along

the lengthwise axis of each basin chosen.



RESULTS

Basin Order and Area

Data are presented for 7 first-order, 9 second-order, 10 third-order,

and 2 fourth-order basins. In Table 1, total area of the basins included

in this analysis are shown. First-order basins range from 41.4 to 226.8

hectares in area. Range for second-order basins, 56.1 to 682.9 hectares,

overlaps with that of the first-order basins, but it is much larger.

Third-order basins range from 721.1 to 4682.8 hectares in size. Area

values for the two fourth-order basins are 4955.7 and 7040.2 hectares.

The distribution of values is consistent with observations discussed by

Horton (1945).








Wetland Area

Total wetland area is shown for each basin in Table 1. Fourth-order

basins exhibit the greatest range for this parameter: 606.4 to 1488.1

hectares. The range of values for the first-, second-, and third-order

basins overlap considerably, and increase in size as order increases.



Upland Area and Wetland-to-Upland Ratio

Upland area and amount of wetland acreage per unit of upland acreage

in each basin were calculated and are shown in Table 1. First-order

basins exhibit the greatest range (0.1 to 1.0), and fourth-order basins

exhibit the smallest range (0.1 to 0.4). There is considerable overlap

between all of the ranges. Comparison of magnitude values within each

order shows nothing more.



Wetland-size Frequency

Frequencies of wetland size for the 10-basin subsample, and the

largest and smallest basins in it are listed in Table 2. The smallest

basin is OLS7, a first-order subbasin of Oak Creek on the Peace River. It

contains only one wetland. East Fork is the largest basin in this

subsample. It is a fourth-order basin in the Manatee River basin. Note

that the frequency for all but one of the basins shown exhibit a skewed

binomial distribution. The disparity between these distributions may be

caused by the relative difference in man-caused disturbance levels which

would impact more of the very small wetlands.


I















Table 1. Summary of basin area statistics
--------------------------------------------------------
Basin Order Magni- Total Wetland Upland Wetland/
tude area (ha) area (ha) area (ha) Upland


ANCLOTE
Cross Cypress Branch
CCS1
MANATEE
East Fork
EFTI
EFT2
EFT3
PEACE
Payne Creek
Plunder Branch
Doe Branch
Shirttail Branch
Gum Swamp Branch
Oak Creek
OCS1
OCS2
OCS3
OCS4
OCS5
OCS6
OCS7
PITHLACHASCOTEE
Fivemile Creek
FCS1
FCS2
SUWANNEE
Rocky Creek
Rocky Creek
Bay Creek
BCS1
BCS2
BCS3
BCS4
BCS5


2,166.5
682.9

7,040.2
410.9
104.9
721.1


1,365.2
2,320.6
929.0
2,467.8
4,955.9
244.0
277.1
105.3
107.5
201.2
150.9
41.4

2,398.5
241.8
226.8


4,682.8
2,865.5
63.9
56.1
466.6
169.1
759.3


639.4 1,527.1
202.1 480.8


606.4
8.6
5.0
28.2


237.6
550.9
201.5
583.1
1,488. 1
29.5
28.3
52.3
8.7
55.1
63.2
7.0

830.4
77.8
54.2


1,839. 1
905.9
12.1
3.0
113.1
28.0
231.9


6,433.8
402.3
99.9
692.9


1,127.6
1,769.7
727.5
1,884.7
3,467.8
214.5
248.8
53.0
98.8
146.1
87.7
34.4

1,568.1
164.0
172.6


2,843.7
1,959.6
51.8
53.1
353.5
141.1
527.4


0.4
0.4

0.1
.0
0.1
.0


0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.1
1.0
0.1
0.4
0.7
0.2

0.5
0.5
0.3


0.7
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.4










Table 2. Summary of wetland-size frequency.


Basin Size Class (ha)

0.01-0.40 0.41-4.00 4.01-40.00 40.01-400.00 400.01-4000.00


All basins 765 965 270 29 1

Shirttail Branch 12 34 10 0 0

Rocky Creek 227 182 39 4 1

East Fork 45 102 25 2 0

Lower Reach 7 16 2 0 0

Mid Reach 7 36 6 1 0

Headwater Reach 31 50 17 1 0

EFT1 4 5 0 0 0








Topographic Characterization

First-order Basin

A representative basin is shown in Figure 2. There is only one

wetland in this basin. Longitudinal cross-section along the basin axis

shows a relatively consistent change in slope. Transverse cross-sections

show the headwaters area to be flat with a gradual increase in relief

toward the basin mouth.


Second-order Basin

Figures 3a and 3b are illustrations of a second-order representative

basin. Several wetlands are located in the upper two-thirds of the basin.

Slope along the longitudinal axis changes sharply in the middle of the

basin. Relief in the headwaters area is higher than in the first-order

basin, and change in relief does not progress in a consistent manner

toward the basin mouth.


Third-order Basin

Distribution of numerous wetlands in this basin is shown in Figure 4a.

Relationships between wetland density and basin location are not readily

apparent from visual inspection of the map.

The longitudinal cross-section, shown in Figure 4b, indicates a

relatively consistent slope from headwaters to basin mouth. Transverse

cross-sections uphold this observation. Relative relief across the

headwaters reach is less than that in the mid-reach and lower reach.


Fourth-order Basin

Wetland distribution is shown in Figure 5a. In the lower reach,

wetlands become less numerous near the basin mouth. Such a relationship

is not clearly evident in the mid and headwater reaches.






















































E
-J
0



C
0
o 25




| 61( 122
A A'


0 1188
D D'
Distance (meters)

Longitudinal Cross-section


>7


0 503
B B'
Distance (meters)

Transverse Cross-section


Figure 2. Topographic characterization of first-order basin.


25 -


I I
0 335
C C'
























































Figure 3a. Topographic characterization of second-order basin.




































Distance (meters)

Longitudinal Cross-section


~Nv~r~


35 -


0 762
C C'


35 -


7-


1__j
61 152
A A'


Distance (meters)
Transverse Cross-section


Figure 3b. Cross-sections: topographic characterization of second-
order basin.
































































Figure 4a. Topographic characterization of third-order basin.

Figure 4a. Topographic characterization of third-order basin.


L





































2 I I 1 1


Distance (meters)


Longitudinal Cross-section


340 0
A
Distance (meters)


1700
A'


1200 0
B
Distance (meters)


1100
B'


iv~4~'


1860
C


1800
C'


Distance (meters)


Transverse Cross-section


Figure 4b. Cross-sections: topographic characterization of
third-order basin.


"---4 1 0


5000


2500


7500


11125







































































0 1

Kilometers


30 30


Reach Boundary

Subbasin Boundary

x- x Cross-section

Wetland


Figure 5a. Topographic characterization of fourth-order basin.







Figure 5b shows a relatively consistent, flat relief along the

longitudinal axis in the upper half of the basin. Floodplain is evident

at the mouth. Transverse cross-sections in Figure 5c show a gently sloped

bowl shape across the headwaters, bounded on one side by a

relatively high ridge and elevated bowl. Elevation above mean sea level

is approximately equal for the areas shown in cross-sections BB" and CC'.

Except for the stream channel, relief along cross-section AA' looks

similar to that in the other cross-sections.



LITERATURE CITED


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

Horton, R.E. 1945. Erosional development of streams and their drainage
basins. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 56(3):257-370.

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

Strahler, A.N. 1957. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology.
American Geophysicists Union Transcripts, 38(6):913-920.





























































5000


Distance (meters)


Longitudinal Cross-section


10000 15000 16000
D'



Figure 5b. Longitudinal cross-section: topographic characterization
of fourth-order basin.





47










40 40




_j 35 35




30 30


-I


I
1400 0 900 2800 0 5500
A A' B B'
Distance (meters) Distance (meters)

Transverse Cross-section







40




E 35


0

o
0 30
30



0


0 7200
C Distance (meters) C'

Transverse Cross-section
Figure 5c. Transverse cross-sections: topographic characterization
of fourth-order basin.










Task 1C. Floodplain Vegetation Characteristics of Small
Stream Watersheds of Pennisular Florida



Francesca Gross


The main objective of this task is to document physical and
vegetative characteristics of small stream floodplain communities and to
derive indices of community organization that relate physical parameters
with vegetative patterns as design parameters for reclamation of
floodplain ecosystems. Specifically, data from this task will yield:
1) A description of small stream floodplain communities in terms of species
composition, growth patterns and spatial arrangement of individuals and
species in both horizontal and vertical profiles of the community.
2) Characterization of the response of these communities and species to
environmental influences and the resultant gradients.



INTRODUCTION

Field work for this year of study was completed in August 1985. An

additional six streams were studied this year to bring the total of

streams studied to twelve. A total of 21,360 square meters of stream

transect were studied over the two year study. Results from this study

will yield planting strategy for species type, spacing and location of

trees for revegetation of reclaimed sites. This study will also indicate

physical profile of floodplains at differing locations within basins for

reconstructing sections of streams. Herbaceous and shrub information can

be used as an index for regrowth of communities over time.

Much of the work done in systems similar to the streams studied has

been done on Southern bottomland hardwood swamps by Monk (1965), Beschel

and Webber (1962), and Wharton (1982) and central Florida streams by

Clewell(1982). Transects similar to this study were done on the South

Prong Alafia River in Clewell's work. These sites were in the same area

and similar vegetatively to the Little Manatee River and Peace River









sites. The contiguous quadrat sampling approach was used in both the

Clewell study and the Beschell and Webber study.



METHODS

Study Areas

A total of 12 streams were studied within penisular Florida. Figure

1 shows the locations of stream transects. The streams were included in

seven different river basins representing both north and central Florida.

Two basic types of cross-sectional relief were studied: deeply incised

streams and streams having broad, flat floodplains. Incised streams were

concentrated in St. Mary's, Suwannee, Peace and Little Manatee basins while

broad flat streams were distributed in the Kissimmee, Oklawaha and Anclote

basins. The twelve streams studied are listed by county and river basin in

Table 1.

Initial selection of streams relied heavily on streams with discharge

data records. As few small streams in Florida are guaged by U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) or Water Management Districts, later selection

relied less on discharge data availability. The major factor in selecting

transect sites was the amount of disturbance in headwaters, midreach and

lower reach areas. Areas with excessive cattle grazing or logging in the

floodplain were not used.


Field Methods

Location of Transects

Three cross sectional transects were located on each stream at the

headwaters, midreach and lower reach. USGS topographic maps were used to

initially locate transect sites. Aerial photography was used to further

identify floodplain areas and vegetative composition. Bridges and other



























River


STUDY AREA








4


0 50 100
miles


Approximate location of study areas.


Figure 1.













Table 1. Stream Location by County and River Basin


Stream County River Basin


Alderman Creek Hillsborough County Little Manatee River
Calkins Creek Baker County St. Mary's River
Cross Cypress Creek Pasco County Anclote River
Deep Creek Columbia County Suwannee River
Gilshey Branch Polk County Peace River
Little Manatee Hillsborough County Little Manatee River
Lochloosa Creek Alachua County Oklawaha River
Patrick Creek Polk County Kissimmee River
Robinson Branch Columbia County Suwannee River
Tiger Creek Polk County Kissimmee River
Unnamed Creek "B" Polk County Peace River
Unnamed Creek "C" Taylor County Econfina River


i-









non-natural channel constrictions were avoided. The midreach was located

approximately halfway between the mouth and the headwaters. The headwater

transect locations were chosen where no discernable channel is evident. In

most areas there were some minor stream channels, but generally the

headwaters transect locations were characterized by sheet flow through a

broad, flat floodplain.

At the lower and midreach locations, a transect line was laid out

from the upland area through the floodplain to the opposite upland.

Headwaters transects were laid out differently due to the extensive

width. Transect lines in those locations began in the upland and ended

in the center of the floodplain area. One lower reach transect was also

laid out in this way due to the width of the floodplain at the point of

the transect.

Upland communities are defined as those above ordinary high water

line. Davis (1973) used vegetative parameters for defining this water line

in Florida lakes. Indices used in the study to define ordinary high water

line were palmetto line, lichen line, and tree buttressing. In Davis' list

of species, saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) was used as an indicator for

upland/wetland border. Dubois and Courtney (1980) define ordinary high

water line by locating soil, geomorphic and botanical features which

indicate long term submergence. Indicators of water levels studied in

their 1980 report on a Florida stream were: creekward edge of palmetto

understory, tops of cypress trunk buttresses and lower limit of conspicuous

lichen growth on cypress trunks. Lichen lines were found to coincide with

the high end of elevational range of water flucuation over several years.

Saw palmetto were predictors of mean annual floods. Buttressing structure

of cypress trunks is regarded by Kunz and Demmarree (1934) as a reaction to









flooding. Davis interpreted cypress buttresses as long term indicators of

historic water levels.

The gradient analysis approach to sampling vegetation was used by

Whittaker (1967) where the quadrats were sampled along elevational

gradients. His conclusions were that species are distributed according to

their individual responses to environmental factors affecting them.

Other gradient analyses using the quadrat method include a Wisconsin

hardwood forest study by Curtis and McIntosh (1951), and an Indiana River

bluff by Cain et al. (1945).

Line strip sampling was used studying three diverse types of Eastern

coniferous forests and maple-beech stands by Lindsey (1955) and found

suitable for detailed studies of diverse forests.

The gradient analysis in this study included tree, woody and

herbaceous species measured along an elevational gradient with peat depth

and water level.


Plant Sampling

Each transect consisted of line strip quadrats 5 meters wide and a

minimum of 40 meters in length. Each quadrat was divided in 10 meter

intervals laid end to end.

Within each quadrat all woody species greater than 5 cm diameter

breast height (DBH) were located by measuring linear and lateral distance

along the transect line, and species identity and DBH were recorded. All

species less than 5 cm DBH and greater than 1.37 m in height were measured

within a 1.25 m area to either side of the center line for the same

indices as the larger size class.


_~i~









Woody species less than 1.37 m in height were inventoried for

presence/absence at the beginning of each 10 meter block. These quadrats

extended 2 m on the transect line and 1 m to either side.

Herbaceous plants were sampled for presence/absence in a 1/4m2 area

at the beginning of each 10 meter block.

In summary the woody plants were categorized as follows:

Size Type
=>5cm DBH Canopy Trees
<5cm DBH,>1.37m height Subcanopy Trees and Shrubs
<5cm DBH,<1.37m height Woody Trees and Shrubs


Physical Parameters

Organic soil depth was measured using a 1 inch soil core at 5 meter

intervals along the transect. When soils are characterized by deep

accumulations of peat, depth was measured to hard underlying sand with a

metal rod.

Groundwater levels were measured every 10 meters along lower reach

and midreach transects and more frequently when conditions warranted.

Fewer wells were needed at headwater sites since most sites had standing

water. Temporary groundwater wells were dug with a 3 1/4 inch soil auger

and wells were allowed to stabilize for 3 hours before measurements were

taken.



Data Analysis

Data from all transects were entered in a data-base program for

statistical manipulations. All vegetation data will be compared between

reaches, within transects in 10 meter blocks and between streams. Each

transect was divided into 5 x 10 meter blocks for calculation of relative

density (number of individuals of a species in a block/total number of

individuals of all species in a block), relative dominance (total basal










area of species in block/total basal area of block), and importance

value (relative density plus relative dominance/2). Diversity per block

was calculated using the Shannon-Wiener Index. Nearest neighbor analysis

was calculated for spatial patterning.

Physical data for elevation, peat depth and water levels was combined

with floristic data. These data will be regressed over the length of the

transect against vegetation data for information on growth patterns of

communities and individual species.

Data from maps will be compared between stream basins in the form of

stream and basin slope, relief and length; floodplain width at reaches and

stream length total; and ratio between uplands and wetlands.



RESULTS

A total of six streams were completed in 1985 in addition to the six

streams completed in 1984. A total of 13900 square meters of transect were

completed this year. Table 2 lists the twelve streams, transect length by

reach, average length of cross sections by stream type and total transect

length.

Vegetation lists of species found in line-strip quadrats are listed

in the appendix to this task. The lists are given as tree species in

canopy and subcanopy size classes (Appendix A-i), all woody species

including trees and shrubs found in the woody size class (Appendix A-2)

and all herbaceous species found in quadrats (Appendix A-3). A total of

90 tree species, 56 shrub species and 140 herbaceous species were found.

As examples, data are given for two sample streams: Alderman Creek, a

deeply incised stream, in Polk County; and Unnamed"C", a broad, flat stream

in Taylor County. The data are given in Appendix B-1 through B-6 for each


I














Table 2. Stream Transect Length(m)


Stream Total Lower Midreach Headwaters
Length Average Average Average



Incised Streams

Alderman Creek 252 49 103 100
Calkins Creek 315 95 120 100
Deep Creek 275 45 170 60
Gilshey Branch 195 40 50 100
Little Manatee 320 75 145 100
Robinson Branch 210 50 85 75
Unnamed Creek "B" 240 50 100 90

Subtotal 1807 404 773 625
Average 258 58 110 89


Flat Streams

Cross Cypress 440 120 220 100
Lochloosa Creek 425 160 115 150
Patrick Creek 695 *270 235 190
Tiger Creek 550 250 200 100
Unnamed Creek "C" 355 155 140 60

Subtotal 2465 955 910 600
Average 493 191 182 120

All Streams

Total 4272 1359 1683 1225
Average 356 113 140 102



* Dennotes lower reach transect with half normal distance.














ALDERMAN CREEK HW
CROSS


0 20 40 60 80
DISTANCE(M)


SPEAT LAYER -4 STANDING WATER


Figure 2. Cross section of Alderman Creek headwaters.


20

0

-20

-40

-60

-80

-100

-120

-140

-160

-180

-200

-220


100













ALDERMAN


CREEK


MR


CROSS


0 20 40 60 80 100
DISTANCE(M)


*.'.IPEAT LAYER


Cross section of Alderman Creek midreach.


70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
-110
-120
-130
-140


Figure 3.













ALDERMAN LR
CROSS SECTION


0 20 40
DISTANCE(M)


| PEAT LAYER 1, STANDING WATER


Figure 4. Cross section of Alderman Creek lower reach.


60

40

20

0

-20

-40

-60

-80

-100

-120

-140

-160

-180

-200













UNNAMED CREEK HW
CROSS SECTION


0 20 40
DISTANCE(M)


PEAT LAYER


.4,


STANDING WATER


Figure 5. Cross section of Unnamed Creek "C" headwaters.


30

20

10

0

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

-60

-70

-80

-90














UNNAMED CREEK MR
CROSS


140


0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DISTANCE(M)


:' PI EAT LAYER


. STANDING WATER


Cross section of Unnamed Creek "C" midreach.


20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
-110
-120
-130
-140
-150
-160
-170
-180


Figure 6.













UNNAMED CREEK LR
CROSS


0 20 40 60 80
DISTANCE(M)


I '. I PEAT LAYER


100 120 140 160


* IJ, STANDING WATER


Cross section of Unnamed Creek "C" lower reach.


0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-80
-70
-80
-90
-100
-110
-120
-130
-140
-150


Figure 7.









stream including tree species, line distance, DBH, mortality, elevation,

peat depth, water level, nearest neighbor tree species and distance to,

and occurance of tree species on hummocks. Figures 2 through 7 are

cross sectional graphs of elevation, water level, and peat depth for the

headwaters, midreach and lower reach for Alderman Creek and Unnamed Creek

"C". (UNC)

Herbaceous and woody species data for these two sample sites are

given in Appendix C-1 and C-2.

Regressions of peat depth, water level and elevation against species

and community type will be completed in the last quarter of this year's

work. Computer manipulation of the data will be complete to compare

stream reaches, total stream data and basin data for resulting community

patterns.

The physical data from maps comparing stream and basin slopes, relief

and length, floodplain width and upland to wetland ratio is still being

compiled and should be available for comparisons shortly.

The two sample transects were compared by stream section for average

dominance, average density and average importance value. A summary of this

data is in Table 3. General conclusions show Black Gum (Nyssa sylvatica

var. biflora) as a major species in all transects accept the lower reach

of Alderman Creek. The headwaters of the flat stream (UNC) show over half

the vegetation dominated by Black Gum with Cypress (Taxodium ascendens),

Swamp Redbay (Persea palustrus), and Sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana) making

up the majority of the other canopy trees. The headwaters of the incised

stream showed a less dominant Black Gum. The vegetation is composed of a

mix of Sweetbay, Red Maple (Acer rubrum), Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia)

and Dahoon Holly (Ilex cassine).








Table 3. Summary Data for Alderman Creek and Unnamed "C".



Transect Tree Average Average Average
Name Species Dominance Density Importance
Value

Headwaters


UNC1 NSB 60.23 51.49 56
TA 15.41 7.14 11.5
PEP 9.7 12.5 11
MV 7.66 14.66 11
CR .74 7.14 4
PE 5.69 1.79 3.5

ALD1 MV 34.22 26.56 31
AR 21.83 26.56 24
QLA 12.05 17.19 15
IC 7.54 21.88 15
NSB 19.18 4.69 12
PE 4.87 1.56 3

Midreach


UNC2 NSB 38.32 21.15 30
TA 24.97 17.31 21
PB 18.41 25.00 21
PE 11.35 14.42 12.5
AR 5.11 8.65 7
MC 1.22 7.69 4.5

ALD2 NSB 35.61 29.41 32
MV 18.69 7.84 13.5
AR 11.94 11.76 12
QLA 12.32 7.84 10
LS 10.71 5.88 8.5
FC 4.28 9.8 7

Lower Reach


UNC3 AR 37.7 33.3 35
NSB 29.53 35.19 32
PE 10.27 16.67 13
TD 13.93 5.56 9.5
MV 6.54 1.85 4
PB 1.79 3.70 2.5

ALD3 QLA 30.05 15.79 23
LS 12.73 31.58 22
CG 22.78 21.05 22
QN 16.96 15.79 16
AR 14.83 5.26 10
FC 2.64 10.53 6.5








The midreach of the stream shows a dominance of Black Gum in both

stream types. In the flat stream wetland species of Cypress, Swamp Redbay,

and Slash Pine (Pinus elliottii) mix with the black gum to compose 75% of

the vegetation. The incised stream tree species are mixed with Black Gum,

Sweetbay, and Red Maple, making up 50% of the canopy.

The lower reach for the flat stream is dominated by Black Gum, Red

Maple, and Slash Pine. The incised stream is composed of mostly upland

or transitional tree species of Laurel Oak, Sweet Gum (Liquidambar

stryracflua), Water Hickory (Carya glabra), and Water Oak (Quercus nigra).

Referring to Table 2, the transects tend to be shorter for the

incised streams than for the flat, broad streams. When flood events occur

water tends to remain in the incised channel while it tends to spread out

and stand in the vegetation of flat streams. This partially accounts for

the difference in floodplain vegetation. Alderman Creek transects tended

to be mixed with more transitional or upland trees than the flat stream,

Unnamed "C".










LITERATURE CITED


Beschel, R.E., P.J. Webber. 1962. Gradient analysis in swamp forests.
Nature 194:207-209.

Cain, S.A., R.C. Froesner and J.E. Potzger. A comparison of strip and
quadrat analyses of the woody plants on a Central Indiana river
bluff. Butler Univ. Bot. Stud. 1:157-171.

Clewell,A.F., J.A. Goolsby, and A.G. Shuey. 1982. Riverine Forests of
the South Prong Alafia River System, Florida. Wetlands, 2:21-72.

Curtis J.T. and R.P. McIntosh. 1951. An upland forest continuum in the
prairie-forest border region of Wisconsin. Ecology 32:476-496.

Davis, J.H. 1973. Establishment of mean high water lines in Florida
lakes.Florida Water Resurces Research Center, Gainesville, Florida.
Pub. No. 24.

Dubois, S.J. and C.M. Courtney. 1980. Plants as indicators of recent and
long term water levels in a central Florida floodplain. Applied
Environmental Services, Marco Island, Florida.

Kurz, H., and D. Demaree. 1934. Cypress buttresses and knees in relation
to water and air. Ecology 15:36-41.

Lindsey, A.A. 1955. Testing the line-strip method against full tallies in
diverse forest types. Ecology 36:485-495.

Monk, C.D. 1965. Southern mixed hardwood forest of Northcentral Florida.
Ecological Monographs 35:335-354.

Monk, C.D. 1966. Tree species diversity in six forest types in north
central Florida. Journal of Ecology 54:341-344.

Monk, C.D. 1966. An ecological study of hardwood swamps north-central
Florida. Ecology 47:649-654.

Monk, C.D. 1967. Tree species diversity in the eastern deciduous forest
with particular reference to North Central Florida. The American
Naturalist 101:173-187.

Wharton, C.H., W.M. Kitchens, and T.W. Sipe. 1982. The ecology of
bottomland hardwood swamps of the Southeast: a community profile.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program,
Washington D.C. FWS/OBS-81/37. 133 pp.

Whittaker, R.H. 1967. Gradient Analysis of Vegetation. Bio. Rev.
49:207-264.













Appendix A-i. Master Tree Soecies List


Common Name


AA Aronia arbutifolia
AR Acer rubrum
AS Alnus serrulata
BA Baccharis alnifolia
BAL Baccharis anqustifolia
BN Betula niqra
BS Bumelia sp.
CAA Callicarpa americana
CC Carpinus caroliniana
CA Carya aquatica
CG Carva qlabra
CL Celtis laeviqata
CO Cephalanthus occidentalis
CI Chamaecyparis thyiodes
CS Citrus sp.
CFO Cornus foemine
CAE Cratequs aestivalis
CP Cyrilla parviflora
CR Cyrilla racemiflora
DS Dead and Standina
DV Diospyros viroiniana
FC L raxinus caroliniana
6A bleditsia aguatica
bl. bordonia lasianthus
IA Ilex ambiqua
IC Ilex cassine
ICO Ilex coriacea
IG Ilex alabra
IM Ilex myrtifolia
I0 Ilex opaca
IDA Ilex opaca arenicola
IV Itea virqinica
IP Illicium parviflorum
LR Leucothoe racemosa
LA Leucothoe axillaris
LS Liquadambar styraciflua
LF Lyonia ferruqinea
LFR Lyonia fruticosa
LYL Lyonia liqustrina
LL Lyonia lucida
LM Lyonia mariana
MG Maanolia grandiflora


Red Chokeberry
Red Maple
Hazel Alder
Baccharis
Narrowleaf Baccharis
River Birch
Bumelia
American Beautyberry
Blue Beech
Water Hickory
Piqnut Hickory
Sugar Hackberry
Buttonbush
Atlantic White Cedar
Citrus
Swamp Doowood
May Hawthorn
Little Cyrilla
Swamp Cyrilla
Dead Tree
Persimmon
Carolina Ash
Water Locust
Loblolly Bay
Carolina Holly
Dahoon Holly
Larqe Galberry
Inkberry Holly
Myrtle-leaved Holly
American Holly
Shrub Holly
Virginia Sweetspire
Stinkbush
Sweetbell's Leucothoe
Coast Leucothoe
SweetQum
Staqqer-bush
Staacer-bush
Male-blueberry
Fetter-bush
Staqqer-bush
Southern Maqnolia


Scientific Name









Appendix A-1(cont.)


Scientific Name


MV Magnolia virqiniana
MC Myrica cerifera
MR Morus rubra
NSB Nyssa sylvatica biflora
OA Omanthus americana
PB Persia borbonia
PEP Persia palustris
PC Pinus clausa
PE Pinus elliottii
PP Pinus palustrus
PSE Pinus serotina
PT Pinus taeda
PA Prunus anqustifolia
PS Prunus serotina
QC Quercus chapmanii
6W Quercus oeminata
UF Quercus falcata
W1 Ouercus incana
QL Quercus laevis
ULA Guercus laurifolia
UMI Quercus minima
UM Quercus myrtifolia
ON Quercus niqra
OP Quercus phellos
QV Quercus virqiniana
UVG Quercus virqiniana qerminata
RC Rhododendron canadense
RS Rhododendron serrulata
HR Unidentified dead
RV Rhododendron viscosum
SE Sabal ethoia
SP Sabal palmetto
SC Salix caroliniana
SF Salix floridana
SCA Sambucus canadensis
SFR Sesbania fruticosa
SR Serrenola repens
SS Styrax sp.
TA Taxodium ascendens
TD Taxodium distichum
TAM Tilia americana
UA Ulmus americana
UN Unknown
VA Vaccinium abortetum
VAS Vaccinium sp.
VF Vaccinium fuscatum(corymbosum)
VM Vaccinium myrsinites
VN Viburnum nudum


Sweetqum Maqnolia
Waxmyrtle
Red Mulberry
Black Gum Tupelo
Wild Olive
Red Bay
Swamp Bay
Sand Pine
Slash Pine
Lonqleaf Pine
Eastern White Pine
Lobolly Pine
Chicksaw Plum
Black Cherry
Chapman's Oak
Sand Live Oak
Southern Red Oak
Blueiack Oak
Turkey Oak
Laurel Oak

Myrtle-leaved Oak
Water Oak
Willow Oak
Live Oak
Live Oak
Canadian Rhododendron
Swamp Azalea
Dead Tree
Swamp Azalea
Shrub Palm
Cabbage Palm
Ward Willow
Florida Willow
Elderberry
Sebastian Bush
Saw Palmetto
Snowbell
Pond Cypress
Bald Cypress
Basswood
American Elm
Sterile Dicot
Sparkleberry
Blueberry
Hiqhbush Blueberry
Ground Blueberry
Possum Haw


1


Common Name





69


Appendix A-1 (cont.)


Scientific Name Common Name


VO Viburnum obovatum Walter's Viburnum
VS Viburnum so. Viburnum















Appendix A-2. Woody Master Species List


Common Name


Acer rubum
Ampelopsis arborea
Aronia arbutifolia
Baccharis alnifolia
Berchemia scandens
Callicarpa americana
Carya Qlabra
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Clethra alnifolia
Cli+tonia monophylla
Cornus foemina
Crataeaus aestivalis
Cyrilla racemiflora
Cyrilla parviflora
Dioscroea sp.
Diospyros virainiana
Fraxinus caroliniana
Hypericum sp.
Hyptis verticillata
Ilex cassine
Ilex myrtifolia
Ilex plabra
Itea virqinica
Leucothoe axillaris
Leucothoe racemosa
Liouidambar styraciflua
Ludwiqia sp.
Lyonia lioustrina
Lyonia +erruqinia
Lyonia mariana
Macfadvena unauis-cati
Magnolia viroiniana
Nyssa sylvatica biflora
Persia borbonia
Persia palustrus
Prunus serotina
Quercus laurifolia
Nuercus nipra
Quercus minima
Quercus virainiana
Rhododendron canedense
Rhododendron serrulatum


Red Maple
Common Peppervine
Red Chokeberry
Baccharis
Ratten Vine
American Beautyberry
Piqnut Hickory
Buttonbush
Sweet pepperbush
Black Titi
Swamp Doqwood
May Haw
Swamp Cyrilla
Littleleaf Titi
Yam
Persimmon
Carolina Ash
St.Johnswort
Bushmint
Dahoon Holly
4 Myrtle-leaved holly
Inkberry Holly
Virginia willow
Fetterbush
Sweetbell's Leucothoe
Sweetaum
Marsh Purslane
Hehuckleberry
Staqqer-bush
Large-flower Staqqerbush
Cat's Claw Vine
Southern Maanolia
Swamp Tupelo
Red Bay
Swampbay persia
Wild Cherry
Laurel Oak
Water Oak

Live Oak
Canadian Rhododendron
Swamp Honeysuckle


Scientific Name














ADDendix A-2. (cont.)


Common Name


Rhododendron viscosum
Salix caroliniana
Sambucus canadensis
Sesbania fruticosa
Styrax sp.
Tilia americana
Vaccinium arboretum
Vaccinium ashei
Vaccinium australe
Vaccinium fuscatum corymbosumm)
Vaccinium myrsinites
Viburnum obosatum
Viburnum nudum
Ulmus americana


Swamp Honeysuckle
Ward Willow
Elderberry
Sesbania bush
Styrax
Basswood
Sparkleberry
Rabbit-eye Blueberry
Hiqhbush Blueberry
Hiqhbush Blueberry
Scrub Blueberry
Walter's Viburnum
Possum Haw
American Elm


Scientific Name













Appendix A-3. Master Herbaceous Species List


Scientific Name


Acalypha qracilens
Acanthacaea sp.
Ambrosia artemisiifolia
Ampelopsis arborea
Amphicarpus muhlenberqianum
Andropoqon sp.
Andropoqon alomeratus var.qlaucopsis
Apios americana
Arisaema triphyllum
Athyrium filixfemina
Axonopus affinis
Baccharis sp.
Bacopa caroliniana
Berchemia sp.
Berchemia scandens
Bidens mitis
Blechnum serrulatum
Boehmeria cylindrica
Bumelia so.
Bulemia reclinata
Callicarpa americana
Centella asiatica
Cephalenthus occidentalis
Chaptalia tomentosa
Chasmanthium laxum
Cicuta mexicana
Cicuta so.
Clematis virqiniana
Commelina so.
Commelina diffusa
Cyperus So.
Cyperus qlobulosus
Cyperus haspan
Cyperus polystachyos
Cyrilla racemiflora
Dichondra carolinensis
Diodia teres
Dioscorea sp.
Drymaria cordata
Dulichium arundinaceum
Elephantopus so.
Elephantopus elata
Elephantopus nudatus


Common Name


Three-seeded Mercury


Common Raoweed
Common Peppervine
Perennial Gooberqrass
Bluestem
Bushy Bluestem
Ground Nut
Jack-in-the-Pulpit
Common Ladyfern
Common Carpetarass
Baccharis
Lemon Bacopa
Supplejack
Ratten vine
Marsh Beqqar-tick
Swamp fern
Boq Hemp
Bumelia
Shrubby Buckhorn
French mulberry
. Coin Wort
Buttonbush
Pineland Daisy
Soike chasmanthium
Water Hemlock
Water Hemlock
Virqin's Bower
Day Flower
Spreading Day Flower
Sedae
Globe sedqe
Sedge
Texas Sedae
Swamp Cyrilla
Pony Foot
Poor Joe
Yam
West Indian Crickweed
Three-way sedge
Elephant's Foot
Florida's Elephant's Foot
Purple Elephant's Foot













Appendix A-3. (cont.)


Scientific Name


Common Name


Osmundia reqalis
Panicum aciculare
Panicum anceps
Panicum ciliatum
Panicum commutatum
Panicum dichotomum
Panicum ensifolium
Panicum hemitomon
Panicum sp.
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Paspalum notatum
Pascalum setaceum
Paspalum setaceum var.supinum
Pilobleovis riaida
Pluchea +oetida
Pluchea rosea
Peltandra so.
Polyconum hirsutum
Polvounum punctatum
Pontardaria cordata
Pterocaulon pvcnostadyum
PvrrhooaDous carolinanus
Rhexia sp.
Rhexia Detiolata
Rhynchospora chapmanii
Rhynchosoora fasciularis
Rhynchospora Qracilenta
Rhynchospora miliacea
Rhus radicans
Rubus trivialis
Rubus arqustus
Sambucus canedensis
Saururus cernuus
Sesbania fruticosa
Smilax SD.
Solidaqo fistulosa
Stillinqia sylvatica
Thalia qemiculata
Thelyperteris dentata
Thelyperteris sp.
Thelyperteris palustris
Triadenum virainicum
Ulmus sp.
Urena lobata


Royal Fern
Narrowleaf Panicum
Beaked Panicum
Frinqed Panicum
Variable Panicum
Forked Panicum
Panicum
Maidencane
Panicum
Virqinia Creeper
Bahia Grass
Thin paspalum
Supine paspalum
Pennyroyal
White Fleabane
Godfrev's Fleabane
Arrowarum
Hairy Smartweed
Dotted Smartweed
Heartleaf Pickerelweed
Black-root
False Dandelion
S Meadow Beauty
Coastal Plain Meadow Beauty
Beakrush
Clustered Beakrush
Beakrush
Beakrush
Poison Ivy
Southern Dewberry
Highbush Blueberry
Elderberry
Lizard's Tail
Sebastian Bush
Greenbriar
Hollow Goldenrod
Queen's Delight
Swamp Lily
Tapering Tri-vein Fern
Fern
Marsh Fern
Marsh St. John's-wort
Elm
Caesar Weed














Appendix A-3 (cont.)



Scientific Name Common Name


Valeriana scanden
Viola primulifolia
Viola lanceolata
Vitis sp.
Woodwardia areolata
Woodwardia virqinica
Xyris sp.


Valerian
Primrose Leaved Violet
Lonq -leaf violet
Grape Vine
Dimorphic Chain Fern
Virginia Chain Fern
Yelloweved Grass


j










Appendix B-1. Transect Data from Unnamed Creek "C" Headwaters

INTERVAL (BLOCK) DATA FOR TRANSECT: ECO1


TRAN
RDENS


SPECIES NUM


SECT SUMMARY
RDOM IMPVAL


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


1293.50
10172.73
1637.59
72.67
961.63
2602.31
125.70
22.89


INTERVAL 1 DISTANCE 0 TO 10


SPECIES NUM


RDENS RDOM IMPVAL AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


2 221.20
1 20.42


66.67 91.55 158.22
33.33 8.45 41.78


1.85 -7.40 -4.10
1.80 -7.40 -4.10


INTERVAL 2 DISTANCE = 10 TO 20


SPECIES NUM


NSB
PEP
PE
CR


BA

452.16
855.03
961.63
85.01


RDENS RDOM IMPVAL


11.11
44.44
11.11
33.33


19.21
36.33
40.85
3.61


30.32
80.77
51.96
36.94


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


-2.10
3.88
-0.50
-1.77


-41.60
-38.03
-42.30
-40.73


-3.00
-3.25
-3.00
-3.20


INTERVAL 3 DISTANCE = 20 TO 30


SPECIES NUM


MV
NSB
PP
CR
LL


109.16
1709.68
27.33
40.69
22.89


RDENS

28.57
28.57
14.29
14.29
14.29


RDOM IMPVAL


5.72
89.52
1.43
2.13
1.20


34.29
118.10
15.72
16.42
15.48


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


4.00
3.55
11.00
7.00
1.60


-50.30
-49.85
-46.80
-44.00
-50.80


-2.80
-2.70
-3.00
-3.00
-2.90


INTERVAL 4 DISTANCE = 30 TO 40


SPECIES NUM


RDENS RDOM IMPVAL


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


2 676.87 20.00
70 00
~10.00


35.26
34.48
30.26


55.26
104.48
40.26


-5.75 -72.25
-5.03 -75.66
2.00 -54.80


MV
NSB
PEP
PP
PE
TA
CR
LL


14.29
51.79
12.50
3.57
1.79
7.14
7.14
1.79


7.66
60.23
9.70
0.43
5.69
15.41
0.74
0.14


21.94
112.02
22.20
4.00
7.48
22.55
7.89
1.92


-2.51
-6.82
2.11
1.85
-0.50
-7.58
0.42
1.60


-46.06
-57.13
-36.84
-46.00
-42.30
-51.08
-41.55
-50.80


-2.83
-2.49
-3.16
-2.65
-3.00
-2.63
-3.15
-2.90


MV
PEP


MV
Mp(


-2.10
-2.39
-2.40


L












Appendix B-1.(cont.)
INTERVAL 5 DISTANCE 40 TO 50


SPECIES NUM
I


RDENS RDOM IMPVAL


AVOEL AVGPD AVGWD


MV 2 286.27 13.33
NSB 10 3125.09 66.67
PP 1 45.34 6.67
TA 2 1413.00 13.33

INTERVAL 6 DISTANCE = 50 TO 60


SPECIES NUM


NSB
PEP
TA


BA

4224.05
181.37
1189.31


RDENS

75.00
8.33
16.67


RDOM IMPVAL


75.50
3.24
21.26


150.50
11.58
37.92


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


-11.22
-4.50
-4.80


-45.31
-43.60
-45.65


-2.71
-2.60
-3.00


5.88
64.17
0.93
.29.02


19.21
130.84
7.60
42.35


-10.15
-6.67
-7.30
-10.35


-54.30
-57.80
-45.20
-56.50


-2.30
-2.27
-2.30
-2.25











Appendix B-2. Transect Data from Unnamed Creek"C" Midreach
INTERVAL (BLOCK) DATA FOR TRANSECTs EC02


TRAIN
RDENS


SPECIES NUM


SECT SUMMARY
RDOM IMPVAL


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


1378.86
10349.01
4971.50
3064.11
6742.61
330.79
124.83
23.75
22.05


-23.72
-52.29
-39.02
-23.62
-37.53
-18.39
-33.25
-103.40
-56.20


-48.56
-97.71
-82.99
-44.87
-77.67
-44.21
-67.32
-152.30
-118.60


INTERVAL 1 DISTANCE = 0 TO 10


SPECIES NUM


RDENS


RDOM IMPVAL


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


158.14
28.26


75.00 84.84 159.84
25.00 15.16 40.16


-9.50 -37.87
-4.40 -40.80


INTERVAL 2 DISTANCE = 10 TO 20


SPECIES NUM


AR
NSB
PB
TA
MC


RDENS RDOM IMPVAL


371.74
58.06
333.18
80.27
44.16


33.33
8.33
25.00
25.00
8.33


41.89
6.54
37.55
.?. 05
4.98


75.22
14.88
62.55
34.05
13.31


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


-20.82
-22.00
-21.23
-21.27
-20.60


-46.40
-60.80
-64.00
-64.37
-39.90


2.43
3.00
2.37
2.03
2.30


INTERVAL 3 DISTANCE = 20 TO 30


SPECIES NUM


RDENS


RDOM IMPVAL


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


AR 3 946.86 30.00
PB 4 785.40 40.00
TA 2 511.23 20.00
MC 1 24.62 10.00

INTERVAL 4 DISTANCE = 30 TO 40


SPECIES NUM


NSB
PB
TA
CR


BA

386.75
326.61
183.07
65.41


RDENS

22.22
33.33
22.22
22.22


RDOM IMPVAL AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


40.21
33.96
19.03
6.80


62.43
67.29
41.26
29.02


-38.65
-43.03
-38.70
-49.90


-86.50
-87.67
-88.90
-83.50


3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00


AR
NSB
PB
PE
TA
MC
CR
LL
CLA


8.65
21.15
25.00
14.42
17.31
7.69
3.85
0.96
0.96


5.11
38.32
18.41
11.35
24.97
1.22
0.46
0.09
0.08


13.76
59.47
43.41
25.77
42.27
8.92
4.31
1.05
1.04


2.74
3.00
2.93
3.00
2.84
2.74
2.90
3.00
3.00


2.53
2.60


41.75
34.63
22.54
1.09


71.75
74.63
42.54
11.09


-25.27
-26.88
-26.15
-28.60


-53.70
-53.03
-52.45
-52.60


3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00











Appendix B-2. (cont.)


INTERVAL

SPECIES

PB

INTERVAL

SPECIES

NSB

INTERVAL

SPECIES

NSB
PB

INTERVAL

SPECIES

NSB
TA
CLA

INTERVAL

SPECIES

NSB
PB
TA

INTERVAL

SPECIES

PB
TA
LL

INTERVAL

SPECIES

NSB
TA


5 DISTANCE =

NUM BA

4 2081.16

6 DISTANCE =

NUM BA

3 1442.15

7 DISTANCE =

NUM BA

1 2331.65
5 342.17

8 DISTANCE =

NUM BA

2 897.64
1 1256.00
1 22.05

9 DISTANCE

NUM BA

5 2733.39
1 559.62
2 893.24

10 DISTANCE =

NUM BA

5 508.13
1 1139.51
1 23.75

11 DISTANCE =

NUM BA

3 998.73
3 1879.64


40 TO 50

RDENS RDOM

100.00 100.00

50 TO 60

RDENS RDOM

100.00 100.00

60 TO 70

RDENS RDOM

16.67 87.20
83.33 12.80

70 TO 80

RDENS RDOM

50.00 41.26
25.00 57.73
25.00 1.01

80 TO 90

RDENS RDOM

62.50 65.29
12.50 13.37
25.00 21.34

90 TO 100

RDENS RDOM

71.43 30.40
14.29 68.18
14.29 1.42

100 TO 110

RDENS RDOM

50.00 34.70
50.00 65.30


IMPVAL
f
200.00



IMPVAL

200.00



IMPVAL

103.87
96.13



IMPVAL

91.26
82.73
26.01



IMPVAL

127.79
25.87
46.34



IMPVAL

101.83


AVGEL AVGPD

-46.20 -88.25



AVGEL AVGPD

-73.97 -119.40



AVGEL AVGPD

-50.50 -109.20
-36.68 -102.88



AVGEL AVGPD

-53.90 -102.70
-56.80 -121.40
-56.20 -118.60



AVGEL AVGPD

-68.26 -153.00
-63.80 -139.00
-69.45 -166.85



AVGEL AVGPD

-49.12 -86.04


82.46 -47.70 -83.30
15.71 -103.40 -152.30


IMPVAL

84.70
115.30


AVGEL

-38.37
-43.20


AVGPD

-55.37
-61.03


AVGWD

3.00



AVGWD

3.00



AVGWD

3.00
3.00



AVGWD

3.00
3.00
3.00



AVGWD

3.00
3.00
3.00



AVGWD

3.00
3.00
3.00



AVGWD

3.00
3.00











Appendix B-3. Transect Data from Unnamed Creek "C" Lower Reach

INTERVAL (BLOCK) DATA FOR TRANSECT: ECO3


TRAN
RDENS


SPECIES NUM


SECT SUMMARY
RDOM IMPVAL


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


12378.23
23.75
2147.20
9693.89
586.69
3370.41
4572.51
56.72


33.33
1.85
1.85
35.19
3.70
16.67
5.56
1.85


37.70
0.07
6.54
29.53
1.79
10.27
13.93
0.17


71.04
1.92
8.39
64.71
5.49
26.93
19.48


-48.28
-117.00
-89.00
-50.63
-58.35
-23.92
-102.83


-70.43
-139.20
-78.20
-71.93
-102.05
-66.11
-108.10


-16.00
-16.00
-16.00
-15.84
-16.00
-15.87
-16.00


2.02 -22.50 -49.70 -16.00


INTERVAL 1 DISTANCE = 0 TO 10


SPECIES NUM


RDENS


RDOM IMPVAL


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


NSB 1 678.52 100.00 100.00 200.00 -16.60 -40.00 -13.00

INTERVAL 2 DISTANCE = 10 TO 20


SPECIES NUM


RDENS RDOM IMPVAL


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


NSB 2 69.41 100.00 100.00 200.00 -43.95 -73.75 -16.00

INTERVAL 3 DISTANCE = 20 TO 30


SPECIES NUM


RDENS RDOM IMPVAL


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


6( 000
40.00


95.56 155.56 -33.00 -52.97 -16.00
4.44 44.44 -37.00 -69.75 -16.00


INTERVAL 4 DISTANCE = 30 TO 40


SPECIES NUM


RDENS


RDOM IMPVAL


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


1 65.01
1 606.68


50.00 9.68 59.68 -33.80 -58.30 -16.00
50.00 90.32 140.32 -31.10 -52.30 -16.00


INTERVAL 5 DISTANCE = 40 TO 50


SPECIES NUM


AR
NSB
CR


3998.92
1431.28
56.72


RDENS

50.00
25.00
25.00


RDOM IMPVAL


72.88
26.09
1.03


122.88
51.09
26.03


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD

-30.45 -55.90 -16.00
-18.20 -34.40 -16.00
-22.50 -49.70 -16.00


AR
CO
MV
NSB.
PB
PE
TD
CR


AR
NSB


2269.92
105.51


AR
NSB


L





160


ofic It
a Ot 0
1 6 on 06 Wr

0 it tip o I a n

0 @1

V. if.CS, I
W oil
k, Q

Qb 4% t is-n


K, 16 it6


a it Is, fu I
It It.+~
it do r





It 1


ito

it Iw
if 6


al
m m I b
It 2
V
Ob n~r XP


TYPE


DESCRIPTION


1 CLEARED LAND *
2 RESIDENTIAL *
3 INDUSTRIAL *
4 IMPROVED PASTURE -
5 TREE CROPS --
6 VEGETABLE CROP-
7 LAKES & RIVERS -
8 CYPRESS
9 DRY PRAIRIE
10 XERIC,MESIC HAMMOCKS
11 HYDRIC HAMMOCKS


* AREAS NOT INCLU


12 MARSHES & SLOUGHS
13 SANDHILL PINE / OAK
14 PLANTED PINE
15 TRANSPORTATION *
16 SCRUB PINE

)DED AS SEED SOURCES


A
N


1 2
kilometers



Figure 1. Vegetation map of the area surrounding
Tenoroc mine for 1952.


1 ____ ___I _I i __ ___ ___











Appendix B-3. (cont.)


INTERVAL

SPECIES

AR
NSB

INTERVAL

SPECIES

AR
NSB

INTERVAL

SPECIES

AR
MV

INTERVAL

SPECIES

NSB
TD

INTERVAL

SPECIES

TD

INTERVAL

SPECIES

PB

INTERVAL

SPECIES

AR
NSB


6 DISTANCE =

NUM BA

1 122.66
1 907.46

7 DISTANCE =

NUM BA

1 94.99
2 239.43

8 DISTANCE =

NUM BA

1 1712.00
1 2147.20

9 DISTANCE =


NUM

1
1

10

NUM

1

11

NUM

1

12

NUM

2
3


BA

1063.08
386.88


50 TO 60

RDENS

50.00
50.00

60 TO 70

RDENS

33.33
66.67

70 TO 80

RDENS

50.00
50.00

80 TO 90

RDENS

50.00
50.00


DISTANCE = 90 TO 100

BA RDENS


RDOM

11.91
88.09



RDOM

28.40
71.60



RDOM

44.36
55.64



RDOM

73.32
26.68



RDOM


3791.75 100.00 100. 00

DISTANCE = 100 TO 110

BA RDENS RDOM

547.11 100.00 100.00

DISTANCE = 110 TO 120

BA RDENS RDOM

1783.60 40.00 30.95
3979.14 60.00 69.05


IMPVAL AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD

61.91 -26.40 -38.00 -16.00
138.09 -31.20 -34.40 -16.00



IMPVAL AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD

61.74 -60.00 -67.50 -16.00
138.26 -36.40 -48.00 -16.00



IMPVAL AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD

94.36 -71.90 -87.20 -16.00
105.64 -89.00 -78.20 -16.00



IMPVAL AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD

123.32 -76.40 -105.50 -16.00
76.68 -143.50 -113.50 -16.00



IMPVAL AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD

200.00 -105.50 -133.40 -16.00


IMPVAL AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD

200.00 -72.90 -101.90 -16.00


IMPVAL AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD

70.95 -73.25 -79.30 -16.00
129.05 -63.00 -76.73 -16.00










Appendix B-3. (cont.)


INTERVAL

SPECIES

AR
PB

INTERVAL

SPECIES

CO
NSB

INTERVAL

SPECIES

AR
NSB
PE
TD

INTERVAL

SPECIES


13 DISTANCE =

NUM BA


2
1

14

NUM

1
1

15

NUM

5
4
6
1

16

NUM


2024.18
39.57

DISTANCE -

BA

23.75
257.17

DISTANCE =

BA

306.97
356.21
2854.44
393.88

DISTANCE =

BA


120 TO 130

RDENS

66.67
33.33

130 TO 140

RDENS

50.00
50.00

140 TO 150

RDENS

31.25
25.00
37.50 7
6.25 1

150 TO 160

RDENS


RDOM

98.08
1.92



RDOM

8.45
91.55



RDOM

7.85
9.11
'2.98
.0.07


IMPVAL

164.75
35.25


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD

-65.65 -101.30 -16.00
-43.80 -102.20 -16.00


IMPVAL AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD

58.45 -117.00 -139.20 -16.00
141.55 -99.80 -128.40 -16.00


IMPVAL AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD

39.10 -47.86 -76.96 -16.00
34.11 -66.25 -89.63 -16.00
110.48 -26.55 -68.85 -16.00
16.32 -59.50 -77.40 -16.00


RDOM IMPVAL


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


200.00 -18.67 -60.63 -15.60


3 515.97 100.00 100.00











Appendix B-4. Transect Data from Alderman Creek Headwaters

INTERVAL (BLOCK) DATA FOR TRANSECT: ALD1


SPECIES NUM


AR
CO
IC
MV
NSB
PE
QLA


TRANSECT SUMMARY
RDENS RDOM IMPVAL


3626.32
52.78
1252.40
5684.37
3186.39
808.87
2001.46


26.56
1.56
21.88
26.56
4.69
1.56
17.19


21.83
0.32
7.54
34.22
19.18
4.87
12.05


48.39
1.88
29.41
60.78
23.87
6.43
29.24


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


-57.65
-88.60
-57.64
-53.62
-22.37
-27.80
-45.09


-170.55
-213.40
-184.39
-182.52
-137.20
-32.60
-93.68


-63.00
-63.00
-63.00
-63.00
-63.40
-79.00
-72.87


INTERVAL 1 DISTANCE = 0 TO 10


SPECIES NUM


RDENS RDOM IMPVAL


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


PE 1 808.87 100.00 100.00 200.00 -27.80 -32.60 -79.00

INTERVAL 2 DISTANCE = 10 TO 20


SPECIES NUM


NSB
QLA


91.56
1478.71


RDENS

16.67
83.33


RDOM IMPVAL


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


5.83 22.50 -58.50 -77.20 -64.20
94.17 177.50 -40.40 -51.26 -84.72


INTERVAL 3 DISTANCE = 20 TO 30


SPECIES NUM


BA RDENS

139. 16 40.:00
259.09 60.00


RDOM

634.94
65.06


IMPVAL


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


74.94 -62.70 -99.90 -63.00
125.06 -60.77 -80.20 -63.00


INTERVAL 4 DISTANCE = 30 TO 40


SPECIES NUM


RDENS


RDOM IMPVAL


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


5 211.30
1 103.82


83.33 67.05 150.39 -62.02 -180.06
16.67 32.95 49.61 -43.00 -174.50


INTERVAL 5 DISTANCE = 40 TO 50


SPECIES NUM


1797.05
153.94
294.60


RDENS

60.00
20.00
20.00


RDOM IMPVAL


80.03
6.86
13. 12


140.03
26.86
33.12


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


-41.92 -181.03
-27.05 -183.00
-32.60 -184.55


IC
QLA


-63.00
-63.00


-63.00
-63.00
-63.00










Appendix B-4. (Cont.)



INTERVAL 6 DISTANCE = 50 TO 60


SPECIES NUM


157.00
52.78
73.55


RDENS

40.00
20.00
40.00


RDOM IMPVAL


55.41
18.63
25.96


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


95.41 -100.20 -205.00 -63.00
38.63 -88.60 -213.40 -63.00
65.96 -81.50 -210.00 -63.00


INTERVAL 7 DISTANCE = 60 TO 70


SPECIES NUM


1 615.44
1 113.04
5 753.47


RDENS

14.29
14.29
71.43


RDOM IMPVAL AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


41.53
7.63
50.84


55.81
21.91
122.27


-58.10 -186.80
-73.10 -184.90
-59.28 -187.66


-63.00
-63.00
-63.00


INTERVAL 8 DISTANCE = 70 TO 80


SPECIES NUM


RDENS RDOM IMPVAL


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


36.02
22.17
121.42
20.38


-66.60 -163.20
-5.70 -167.60
-4.30 -167.20
-5.70 -167.60


INTERVAL 9 DISTANCE = 80 TO 90


SPECIES NUM


BA

823.26
177.17
1222.76


RDENS

44.44
22.22
33.33


RDOM

37. 033
7.97
55.00


IMPVAL

81.48
30.19
88.33


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD

-52.88 -172.55 -63.00
-79.00 -190.25 -63.00
-66.83 -183.57 -63.00


INTERVAL 10 DISTANCE = 90 TO 100


SPECIES NUM


RDENS RDOM IMPVAL


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


-43.00 -162.10
-49.91 -177.81
-63.00 -191.50


IC
NSB
QLA


94.40
193.49
3094.82
130.63


33.33
16.67
33.33
16.67


2.69
5.51
88.09
3.72


-63.00
-63.00
-63.00
-63.00


IC
MV
QLA


329.90
3413.54
29.21


11.11
77.78
11.11


8.74
90.48
0.77


19.86
168.26
11.89


-63.00
-63.00
-63.00











Appendix B-5. Transect Data from Alderman Creek Midreach.

INTERVAL (BLOCK) DATA FOR TRANSECT: ALD2


TRANSECT SUMMARY
RDENS RDOM IMPVAL


1663.94
37.37
596.31
46.54
1492.20
2603.22
4960.81
1716.39
181.37
132.47
195.97
169.25
134.71


11.76
1.96
9.80
1.96
5.88
7.84
29.41
7.84
1.96
7.84
1.96
9.80
1.96


11.94
0.27
4.28
0.33
10.71
18.69
35.61
12.32
1.30
0.95
1.41
1.21
0.97


23.71
2.23
14.08
2.29
16.59
26.53
65.02
20.16
3.26
8.79
3.37
11.02
2.93


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


-20.30
-24.00
-26.54
-24.00
-4.53
10.95
-27.07
-1.63
-15.00
-19.17
-24.30
10.34
-5.50


-38.42
-40.30
-37.68
-47.70
-11.20
-31.88
-50.68
-17.42
-16.50
-41.75
-49.50
-1.24
7.60


-73.18
-53.00
-93.06
-43.60
-106.83
-87.20
-57.06
-93.78
-114.90
-67.78
-42.60
-52.40
-111.10


INTERVAL 1 DISTANCE = 0 TO 10


SPECIES NUM


LS
QLA


RDENS


RDOM IMPVAL


593.66 33.33 49.58 82.91
603.70 66.67 50.42 117.09


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD

1.20 -9.10 -90.90
1.40 -8.95 -91.05


INTERVAL 2 DISTANCE = 10 TO 20


SPECIES NUM


LS
TAM


BA RDENS RDOM
e.4
898.54 66.67 86.96
134,71 33.33 13.04


IMPVAL


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


153.63 -7.40 -12.25 -114.80
46.37 -5.50 7.60 -111.10


INTERVAL 3 DISTANCE = 20 TO 30


SPECIES NUM


RDENS


RDOM IMPVAL


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


91.56
2409.29


50.00 3.66 53.66 -25.00 -30.00 -118.80
50.00 96.34 146.34 -33.50 -44.50 -109.50


INTERVAL 4 DISTANCE = 30 TO 40


SPECIES NUM


FC
MV
QLA
UA


122.66
280.41
1057.31
181.37


RDENS

25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00


RDOM IMPVAL


7.47
17.08
64.40
11.05


32.47
42.08
89.40
36.05


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD

-15.80 -23.70 -114.20
-23.80 -30.80 -113.70
-15.00 -21.50 -114.50
-15.00 -16.50 -114.90


SPECIES NUM


AR
CO
FC
IC
LS
MV
NSB
QLA
UA
CFO
ISA
SS
TAM


FC
NSB


L










Appendix B-5. (cont.)


INTERVAL

SPECIES

FC

INTERVAL

SPECIES

NSB
QLA
CFO

INTERVAL

SPECIES

AR
MV
CFO

INTERVAL

SPECIES

FC
NSB
CFO

INTERVAL

SPECIES

CO
IC
NSB
CFO
ISA

INTERVAL

SPECIES

NSB
SS


5 DISTANCE =

NUM BA

2 157.89

6 DISTANCE =

NUM BA

1 283.39
1 55.39
1 56.72

7 DISTANCE =

NUM BA

6 1663.94
3 2322.81
1 28.26

8 DISTANCE =

NUM BA

1 224.20
6 1008.66
1 23.75

9 DISTANCE =

NUM BA

1 37.37
1 46.54
5 942.88
1 23.75
1 195.97


10

NUM

2
5


40 TO 50

RDENS

100.00

50 TO 60

RDENS

33.33
33.33
33.33

60 TO 70

RDENS

60.00
30.00
10.00

70 TO 80

RDENS

12.50
75.00
12.50

80 TO 90

RDENS

11.11
11.11
55.56
11.11
11.11


DISTANCE = 90 TO 100

BA RDENS

316.59 28.57
169.25 71.43


RDOM

100.00



RDOM

71.65
14.01
14.34



RDOM

41.44
57.85
0.70



RDOM

17.84
80.27
1.89



RDOM

3.00
3.73
75.64
1.91
15.72


RDOM

65.16
34.84


IMPVAL

200.00



IMPVAL

104.99
47.34
47.67



IMPVAL

101.44
87.85
10.70



IMPVAL

30.34
155.27
14.39



IMPVAL

14.11
14.84
131.20
13.02
26.83


IMPVAL

93.73
106.27


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD

-31.90 -39.30 -91.35



AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD

-15.30 -27.90 -83.30
5.70 -30.30 -78.50
-16.20 -25.30 -81.50



AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD

-20.30 -38.42 -73.18
22.53 -32.23 -78.37
-3.30 -36.00 -78.10



AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD

-28.10 -56.10 -49.60
-30.97 -60.73 -55.07
-33.20 -64.90 -59.10



AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD

-24.00 -40.30 -53.00
-24.00 -47.70 -43.60
-24.68 -49.38 -44.30
-24.00 -40.80 -52.40
-24.30 -49.50 -42.60


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD

-24.00 -38.25 -55.60
10.34 -1.24 -52.40





86





Appendix B-6. Transect Data from Alderman Creek Lower Reach.

INTERVAL (BLOCK) DATA FOR TRANSECT: ALD3


TRAN
RDENS


SPECIES NUM


SECT SUMMARY
RDOM IMPVAL


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


624.26
111.23
534.01
1264.71
714.00
958.78


5.26
10.53
31.58
15.79
15.79
21.05


14.83
2.64
12.73
30.05
16.96
22.78


20.09 -167.60 -108.00 -134.80


13.17
44.31
45.84
32.75
43.83


-95.60
-29.82
-98.20
-12.40
2.45


INTERVAL 1 DISTANCE = 0 TO 10


SPECIES NUM


30.18
346.19
204.40


RDENS

20.00
20.00
60.00


RDOM IMPVAL AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


5.20
59.61
35.20


25.20
79.61
95.20


-2.80
-5.20
-1.87


-4.80 -155.60
-7.20 -157.00
-3.87 -155.10


INTERVAL 2 DISTANCE = 10 TO 20


SPECIES NUM


RDENS


RDOM IMPVAL


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


QN 2 367.82 100.00 100.00 200.00 -16.00 -17.55 -167.70

INTERVAL 3 DISTANCE = 20 TO 30


SPECIES NUM


RDENS


RDOM IMPVAL


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


356.34 80.'00 65998
183.76 20.00 34.02


145.98 -36.83 -38.05 -161.20
54.02 -25.80 -28.20 -165.10


INTERVAL 4 DISTANCE = 30 TO 40


SPECIES NUM


RDENS


RDOM IMPVAL


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


LS 1 149.50 100.00 100.00 200.00 -28.80 -29.70 -168.40

INTERVAL 5 DISTANCE = 40 TO 50


SPECIES NUM


AR
FC
QLA
CG


624.26
111.23
1080.95
754.39


RDENS

16.67
33.33
33.33
16.67


RDOM IMPVAL


24.28
4.33
42.05
29.34


40.95
37.66
75.38
46.01


AVGEL AVGPD AVGWD


-167.60 -108,00 -134.80
-95.60 -82.20 -155.80
-134.40 -100.05 -141.25
15.40 -5.90 -159.40


AR
FC
LS
QLA
QN
CG


-82.20
-31.12
-76.10
-14.10
-4.38


-155.80
-161.47
-149.20
-164.13
-156.17


LS
QLA














Mooendix C-1. Herbaceous Species List bv Transect


Alderman Creek Headwaters


Species*

Scientific Name


Panicum sp.
Sterile Grass
Valeriana scanden
Saururus cernuus
Lemna minor
Thelypteris palustrus




Alderman Creek Midreach


Transect Completed Auqust 1984


Common Name


Panicum
Grass
Valerian
Lizard's Tail
Common Duckweed
Marsh Fern


Transect Completed Auqust 1984


Species


Scientific Name


Common Name


Polyoonum punctatum
Urena lobata
Rhus radicans
Parthenocissus ouinquefolia
Sterile Grass
Juncus effusus
Smilax sp.
Woodwardia virainica
Thelyptris sp.
Saururus cernuus


Dotted4 martweed
Caesar-weed
Poison Ivy
Virginia Creeper
Grass
Common Rush
Greenbriar
Virqinia Chain Fern
Marsh Fern
Lizard's Tail





88








Appendix C-I. (cont.)



Alderman Creek Lower Reach Transect Completed Auaust 1984


Species

Scientific Name Common Name


Sterile grass Grass
Sterile dicot
Leucobryum albido Moss
Hydrocotlye sp. Pennywort
Panicum so. Panicum
Urena lobata Caesar-weed
Thelvoteris so. Marsh Fern





Unnamed Creek Headwaters Transect Comoleted August 1985


Species*

Scientific Name Common, ame


Woodwardia viroinica Virainia Chain Fern
Sphaanum sp. Sphaqnum sp.
Rhycospora qracilenta Beakrush




Unnamed Creek Midreach Transect Completed Auqust 1985


Species*

Scientific Name Common Name


Woodwardia virginiana Virginia Chain Fern






















Appendix C-l. (cont.)


Unnamed Creek Lower Reach


Transect Completed Aucust 1985


SpeciesV


Scientific Name

Rhus radicans
Osmundia recalis
Cyperus haspan
Sterile Grass
Fuirena so.
Lorinseria areolata


Common Name


Poison Ivy
Royal Fern
Sedae
Grass
Umbrella Grass
Dimorphic Chain Fern


* Dennotes inundation neqitively affecting plant growth.














Appendix C-2. Shrub Species List by Transect


Alderman Creek Headwaters


Species*

Scientific Name


Acer rubrum
Ilex cassine
bordonia lasianthus
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Magnolia virginiana





Alderman Creek Midreach


Transect Completed August 1984


Common Name


Red Maple
Dahoon Holly
Loblolly Bay
Buttonbush
Sweetqum Maqnolia


Transect Completed August 1984


Species


Scientific Name


Common Name


Serrenola reopens
Liquidambar styracflua
Acer rubrum
Quercus laurifolia
Ulmus americana
Cornus foemina
Itea virqinica
Viburnum obovatum
Vitis so.
Ceohalanthus occidentalis
Sambucus canadensis


Saw Pa-tietto
Sweetqum
Red Maple
Laurel Oak
American Elm
Swamp Doqwood
Virginia Willow
Walter's Viburnum
Grape Vine
Buttonbush
Elderberry















Appendix C1.2 (cont.)


Alderman Creek Lower Reach

Species

Scientific Name


Serrenola repens
Acer rubrum
Liquidambar styraciflua


Unnamed Creek Headwaters


Transect Completed August 1984


Common Name


Saw Palmetto
Red Maple
Sweetqum


Transect Completed Auqust 1985


Species


Scientific Name


Common Name


Clethra alnifolia
Leucothoe racemosa
Magnolia virqiniana
Rhododendron viscosum
Persia pFlustrus
Lyonia lucida
Itea virqinica



Unnamed Creek Midreach


Sweet Pepperbush
Sweetbell's Leucothoe
Southern Mapnolia
Swamp ,oneysuckle
Swampbay Persia
Fetter-bush
Virqinia Willow



Transect Completed Auoust 1985


Species*


Scientific Name


Common Name


Lyonia lucida
Persia borbonia
Cyrilla racemosa
Leucothoe racemiflora
Itea virqinica
Cephalanthus occidentalis


Fetterbush
Red Bay
Swamp Cyrilla
Sweetbell's Leucothoe
Virginia Willow
Buttonbush


L














Appendix C-2. (cont.)




Unnamed Creek Lower Reach Transect Completed Auqust 1985


Species*

Scientific Name Common Name
1. -. -.......... -- ------------I-------'---~---------------

Acer rubrum Red Maple
Clethra alnifolia Sweet Pepperbush
Itea virqinica Virginia Willow
Lyonia lucida Fetterbush
Ilex glabra Inkberry Holly

*Denotes inundation neaitively affecting plant growth.








TASK 2a. Development of Indices of Natural
and Reclaimed Ecosystem Structure


Mary M. Davis


The main goal of this task is to develop indices of community
associations and their relationship to the physical landscape parameters in
order to foster reclamation to native communities. Specifically, the
objectives of this task are threefold. The first is to quantify the
structure and population organization of typical and dominant native plant
communities in the principal phosphate mining regions. The second is to
develop indices for plant community organization which will be useful in
landscape reclamation. It will be important to understand if the reclaimed
communities are behaving (e.g. success of the planted trees in relation to
water level) in a similar manner as their native counterparts. The third,
and last objective, is to compile a manual of these indices for the
phosphate industry.


INTRODUCTION

Sampling for the first phase of this task has proceeded satisfactorily

through the first three quarters of this year. The sampling regime has

been directed towards the following products:

1) Description and characterization of individual plant

communities in terms of species composition, physiognomy, and pattern or

spatial arrangement of individuals and species in both the horizontal and

vertical profiles of the community.

2) Characterization of the response of species and the community

to environmental influences, and the dynamics in such responses that give

rise to community gradients.

Two to four member crews have been traveling to various parts of the

state every week or two for two to three days to collect data in native

communities. Physical and biological components are measured along

permanent transects. Groundwater level at each transect is monitored

monthly. Personnel have developed computer programs by which the data are


entered and manipulated in order to be analyzed.,


__1111 -__1111








To date 31 transects have been established in six plant associations.

The transects are arranged latitudinally in three major groups in the

phosphate district: a North Florida region, a Central Florida region, and a

Southern region. Statistically, this helps control and analyse for

differences between communities in different regions of the phosphate

district.

Sampling of actively reclaimed communities has begun and will be

completed by the end of this fourth quarter. Data will initially be

compared between native communities to determine if there has been adequate

sampling at each transect and appropriate components measured. Groundwater

wells are established and monitored at the reclaimed sites in order to

obtain the best estimate of hydroperiod over a long time period.

The remainder of this section describes in more detail themethods of

sampling and analysis used to describe the plant communities. Examples of

three plant associations are used to illustrate the results. Goals for the

last quarter of this year and next year are outlined.


METHODS

Sampling Sites

Six native plant associations have been selected for sampling which

range in species composition, physical structure, relative elevation above

groundwater, and hydroperiod. The associations are typical throughout the

phosphate region and represent communities which could likely be reclaimed.

General descriptions follow in order of descending relative elevation to

the water level.


Sandhills--the highest and most well drained of all the plant
associations, has a deep sand substate and is never
inundated. Dominant canopy species are typically
scattered longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) or sand pine (P.
clausa). When present, the midstory consists of any of a








variety of small, clonal, short-lived oaks such as sand-
live oak (Quercus geminata) or turkey oak (Q laevis).
Groundcover varies from depauperate to dense and diverse
depending on the fire history and man-made disturbance.
Short, clonal shrubs, grasses, composites and legumes are
typical in the healthy groundcover of sandhills.

Pine flatwood/Cypress Dome--pine flatwoods have a thin sand
substrate overlying a relatively impermeable layer such as
clay or a spodic horizon. The water table often lies
close to the surface, inundating low areas up to several
weeks at a time. Due to gentle topographic relief,
groundwater moves by seepage or localized sheet flow to
low points. Slash pine (P. elliottii) and longleaf pine
are common canopy species. A midstory is not usually
present. The ground cover has many species in
common with the sandhill community and is similar
in structure, however, plants are more abundant. Cypess
domes are a common community in low relief areas of the
pine flatwoods. Standing water occurs in the cypress
domes about 50-90% of the year. Substrate has a high sand
content overlain with a thin organic soil layer. Pond
cypress (Taxodium ascendens) is often the only canopy
species. Vegetation at ground level is sparse: lemon
bacopa (Bacopa caroliana), chain fern (Woodwardia
virginiana), coinwort (Centella asiatica), maidencane
(Panicum hemitomon).
The ectone consists of species of both communities
integrating along with shrubs (e.g. wax myrtle, Myrica
cerifera; stagger-bush, Lyonia ferruginea; gallberry,
Ilex glabra; fetterbush, L. lucida) and vines (e.g.
greenbriar, Smilax bona-nox; blackberry, Rubus
artibufolious; muscadine grape, Vitus rotundifolia; and
yellow jessamine, Gelsemium semprevirens).

Pine flatwoods/Bayhead-- a similar association in structure to
the Pine flatwoods/Cypress dome, the bayhead canopy is
dominated by any of the following: loblolly bay (Gordonia
lasianthus), sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana) or swamp bay
(Persea palustris). A frequent midstory species is dahoon
holly (Ilex cassine). Species in the ground cover and
ecotone are similar to those found in the Cypress domes.

Pine flatwoods/Marsh--low relief areas with long
hydroperiods support tree species only along their
fringes. Grading down from flatwoods into a marsh, the
vegetation associations go from flatwoods either
through a fringe of mesic oaks (e.g. laurel oak,
Quercus laurifolia; live oak, Q. virginiana; and
water oak, Q. nigra) to pond cypress and black gum
(Nyssa biflora) into the marsh vegetation, or directly
from h-e tlatwoods into the marsh bordered by shrubs
typical of a cypress dome ecotone. Marsh vegetation
consists of the most diverse species (between regions
and from marsh to marsh) of any other association that








we will look at. However, there are several species
which consistently occur and are often dominant:
maidencare (Panicum hemitomon), St. John's Wort
(Hypericum fasiculatum), yellow-eyed grass (Xyris
spp), marsh fleabane (Pluchea spp), and pickerelweed
(Pontedaria cordata)

Pine flatwoods/Mixed hardwood swamps-unlike the previous
wetland associations which are isolated hydrologically,
mixed hardwood swamps usually drain. The systems we
will be sampling in this association are broad and flat.
Drainage is principally by sheetflow or small, braided
channels. Tree species diversity is highest in this
association. Dominance in the canopy is usually shared by
two or more of the following species: Pond cypress,
blackgum, loblolly bay, sweetbay, swamp bay, red maple
(Acer rubrum), or green ash (Fraxinus caroliniana).
Midstory and groundcover species are similar to those
in bayhead communities. Vegetation is often localized
to raised hummocks which are abundant in this
association.

Mesic hardwoods/Mixed hardwood swamps--similar in most
respects to the previous association except that mesic
hardwoods have replaced the pine flatwoods community. Mesic
hardwoods are present largely because natural processes
which maintained the pine flatwoods have been altered
allowing the encroachment of the hardwoods. The canopy
species can be any of the following: live oak, laurel oak,
water oak, sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple,
loblolly bay, sweetbay, and red bay (Persea borbonia).


Field Sampling

Much of the work done in North American forest uses the tenth-hectare

sample plot as the basic sampling unit (Whittaker 1978). In the now

classic gradient analysis of the Great Smokey Mountains, Whittaker (1952,

1956) used tenth-hectare plots with dimensions 20m x 50m. Tenth-hectare

sampling is preferred over other sampling methods such as the releve, where

accuracy and pattern analysis are part of sampling goals (Gauch 1982). The

shape of the sample plot is also of concern and for two dimensional plots

the choices are square, rectangular, or round. It is generally held that

rectangular plots have a greater chance to integrate variations in pattern









(Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg 1974) and are more likely to give accurate

density measurements (Grieg-Smith, 1964).

Based on the above discussion the tenth-hectare plot was chosen for

use in forested communities. Rectangular plots 10 x 100m were found to be

the most efficient dimensions to adequately sample vegetation. Elongate

rectangular plots of this type have been variously called line strip

transects (Lindsey, 1955), belt transects (Pielou 1977, Mueller-Dombois and

Ellenberg, 1974) or simply quadrats. For each community type selected for

study, a number of representative stands are chosen so as to give

geographical scatter over north and central Florida. Within each stand a

single tenth-hectare line strip transect is established, although in some

stands more are established to assay site variability.

In addition, since one of the goals of the project is to study the

response of the vegetation to environmental gradients, successive line strip

transects laid end to end are extended across transition zones ecotoness)

from one community type into another (e.g. from the pine flatwoods into a

cypress dome). The length of the line strip transects vary from 100m if

the transect is wholly contained within one community type to over 400m or

more if the transect crosses one or more ecotones.

Within the 10m wide band the species and diameter at breast height

(DBH) are recorded for all woody plants having a DBH greater than or equal

to 5 cm. In addition, the position of each tree within the elongated

quadrat in terms of linear distance along the transect line and a lateral

distance from the line is recorded. These latter two measurements are used

not only to mark the position of an individual tree, but also the distance

and identity of the nearest neighbor tree. Nearest neighbor data yields

information on the pattern of trees in the forest; nearest neighbor


Illyl~ --11__ 1-1111111111




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs