tx f/6 vegetative analysis of the …ad-a097 467 stephen f austin state univ nacogdoches tx f/6 6/3...

AD-A097 467 STEPHEN F AUSTIN STATE UNIV NACOGDOCHES TX F/6 6/3VEGETATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE FLOQEPLAIN OF THE TRINIT Y RIVER, TEX--ETC(U)SEP 74 E S NIXON. R L WILLETT OACW63-74-C-0O30

UNCLASSIFIEO NL

mhIIIIIIIIIIII

EIIIIIIIIIIIEII

b_

111j.2 1.0.2I

IIIL125 111111.4 11.6

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHARTNATIONAL BUREAU Of STANDARDS 1963 A

LLEVEL

I Vegetative AnalysisI

I of the Floodplai;

of the Trinity River, Texas

I

I DTICSELECTE

ZAPR8 19 81 J

STEPHEN F. AUSTIN STATE UNIVERSITY,AC--CHES TEXAS

RMIUTION STATEMENT A 34Approved for public release;

Distribution Unlimited. ,,o~o,.e,81 4 7 0018.

,,SRT MNFMER 12. GOVT ACCESSION NO0 9. ft9CIP1MkT1 S CATALOG NUMBEWU

11f (ad j~fidi S~uI. . TYPE OF REPORT A PERIOD COVERED

Vegetative Analysis of the Floodplain of theTrinity River, Texas - Vegetative analysis2 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBers

lray S -fNixon M*R. Larr tWl~~SeeptreiVf-. Austin' State Uversity 1/ST

S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 1O. PRtOGRAM ELEMENT. PROJE1KC1. TASKU. S. Army Engineer District, Fort Worth AREA & WORX UNIT NUMBER

P. 0. Box 17300Fort Worth, Texas 76102

11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS M,1 11, 0@9-*9U. S. Army Engineer District, Fort Worth (f ' 3,S p~P. 0. Box 17300 U a. UMBER OF PA0111Fort Worth, Texas 76102 267 pages

14. MONITORING NCY Nduae~ from Cmntreobwn Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of Side. 8W"t)

NA Uncles

IS*. OCLASSIICATION/0DOWNGOADINGSCEDULE

IC. OISTRI6UTIOk STATEMENT (of thi Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

17. DISTRIBUJTION STATEMENT (of the obtrct entered in Sleek 20. It differentIt-m Roe)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

10. SUPPLEMCHTARY NOTES

IS. KEY WORDS (Continue en let~r Side If 00600MY' Old Itlt h b ock num~w)

[IL AGEYRAC? (W~ - v N Iffy' bPP 1*p4Me A vegetative study of thefloodplain of the Trinity River to analyze and describe representative plantC~mUlities. From this data, frequency, density, dominance and important valuefigures vere obtained. A comunity alludes to any assemblage of organisms In agiven area at a given time; location. for this study were chosen so that woodyvegetation of the Trinity River floodplain could be characterized. This area Isvariable from the i-Lissdpoint Of rainfall, soils, and land use. Vegetation typeof greatest concern in this study was the bottomland hardwood forest; thus,

PD FOs W3 EWnon or IMNov 45t @OLEaT

ASSIICATOP O ThIS PAGE 0.,. aWe RMd

RCUm', CLAMIaCATIo ov T,,s ,sXGM D0, SmO.,,4 .

20N Checklists were made of woody and herbaceous species that were rareand endangered;which will have impact on the future industrial,residential, and agricultural development of the Trinity Riverfloodplain.

Aessloiu ?or

itIS ORA&I -

Unamomed [01JustifilcatiOn----------.4.- ___ DTICBY il Et-ECTEIIDistribution/ 8 18Availability Codes

Avail and/or

Dist Special

VEGETATIVE ANALYSIS

OF THE FLOODPLAIN OF THE TRINITY RIVER, TEXAS

by

Elray S. Nixonand

R. Larry Willett

Stephen F. Austin State University 'Nacogdoches, Texas

Prepared for

U. S. Army Corps of EngineersFort Worth DistrictFort Worth, Texas

Contract No. DACW63-74-C-0030 -

Preliminary

This report does not necessarily constitute the finalproject concept to be adopted and approved by the U. S.Army Corps of Engineers.

DTICAF t.,,.3 1981

September 30, 1974 D

DI'IBUTION STATEMENT A

Appwroved fot public releasq |DisUibution Unlimited

_ _ _I i i l n - i ,

PREFACE

On July 1, 1973, researchers at Stephen F. Austin

State University submitted a report to the U. S. Army Corps

of Engineers, Fort Worth District, entitled, "Ecological

Survey Data for Environmental Considerations on the Trinity

River and Tributaries, Texas." Chapter II of this report,

which involved botanical elements, included quantitative

data based on sampling in each of five vegetational areas

traversed by the Trinity River basin between Fort Worth and

Trinity Bay.

This report includes data resulting from quantitative

sampling and analysis at five locations between November 1973

and September 1974. These locations were chosen so that

woody vegetation of the Trinity River flood plain could

be characterized. The data from these two separate studies

are combined and summarized in this report.iElray S. NixonR. Larry Willett

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the cooperation

and assistance given by W. B. Gallaher and J. II. Blackaller

of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District.

We also appreciate the support of the administration at

Stephen F. Austin State University.

To the many landowners who were kind and considerate

of our needs and permitted us to work on their land, we

extend our sincere thanks. They were helpful beyond our

expectations.

We are indebted to the following for their aid in

field work and data analyses: Jack E. Bailey, Phillip

W. Barnett, Charles L. Burandt, Jr., Michael L. Butts,

Paul W. Cox, Charles R. Ellis, Suzy A. Langston, Elizabeth

A. Lumpkins, Michael McCrary and W. Garland Willett.

Lastly we express our gratitude to Elizabeth A.

Lumpkins and Nita L. Lewis for map and manuscript work

and to William N. Jackson for clerical help.

iii

TABLL OF CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE ........................................... iiACKNOWLEDG2iENTS .................................. iiiINTRODUCTION 1....................................1OBJECTIVES ........................................ 3METHODS AND PROCEDURES ................ ............. 3STUDY AREA 1 .................................... 6STUDY AREA 2 ..................................... 24STUDY AREA 3 .... .................................. 36STUDY AREA 4A .. .................................. 50STUDY AREA 4B ..................................... 63STUDY AREA 5 ........................................ 73STUDY AREA 6A ..................................... 85STUDY AREA 6B 11.....................................8STUDY AREA 7...................................... 11STUDY AREA 7........................112

STUDY AREA 8 ...................................... 124STUDY AREA 9 ...................................... 155STUDY AREA 10 ..................................... 183RESULTS (SUMMARY) AND DISCUSSION ..................... 209LITERATURE CITED .................................. 214APPENDIX 1 Partial checklist of herbaceous

species within the Trinity River Basin ....... 218APPENDIX 2 Partial checklist of shrub, tree,

and woody vine species within the TrinityRiver Basin .................................. 259

iv

INTRODUCTION

From its beginning northwest of Fort Worth, Texas,in Archer County, the Trinity River extends some 350miles (692 river miles) to Trinity Bay (U. S. StudyCommission, 1962). The total fall in elevation forthe river is approximately 1,250 feet and the riverbasin comprises a total area of 18,381 square miles.The topography of the basin ranges from flat to gentlyrolling and hilly.

Vegetatively, the Trinity River Basin is associatedwith several areas or types. Gould (1969) divides Texasinto ten vegetational areas. The Trinity River transectsthe Pineywoods, Gulf Prairies and Marshes, Post OakSavannah, Blackland Prairies and the Cross Timbers andPrairies vegetational areas (Fig. 1). Following arebrief descriptions of these areas as generally charac-terized by Gould (1969).

The Trinity River, within the confines of this study,transects only a small portion of the Cross Timbers andPrairies area. The area is very variable from the stand-points of rainfall, soils and land use. The vegetation,however, is generally rather uniform. Predominant nativegrasses in the prairies are little bluestem (Schizachyriumscoparium), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardi), Indiangrass(Sorghastrum avenaceum), switchgrass (Pa'nicum viratum)and Canada wild-rye (Elymus canadensis). The CrossTimbers areas are dominated by trees such as post oak(Quercus stellata) and blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica)with herbaceous understory species including hairy tri-dens (Erioneuron pilosum) and Texas grama (Boutelouarigidiseta).

The Blackland Prairies, under natural conditions,would be dominated by grasses such as little bluestem,big bluestem, switchgrass, Indiangrass and sideoatsgrama (Bouteloua curti endula). The soils are generallydark-colored calcareous clays.

In general, the Post Oak Savannah vegetational areais characterized by the presence of upland trees such aspost oak, blackjack oak and sandjack oak (Quercus incana)and of marginal bottomland species including sou thernred oak (Quercus faldata), white oak (Quercus alba),hickory (C spp.) and elm (Ulmus spp.) (Bray, r906).The upland soils of the Post OW-Savannah area are light-colored, generally acid and are texturally classed asI

2

r --ACross Timbers

I Blackiand Prairies

Post OakSavannah

Pineywoods

Gul PrairiesLand Marshes

**. - 0.

.4

%II~iA -.-- - - - - - - - - - .

000.

.3

either sands or sandy foams. Bottomland soils aredarker in color, acid, and range from sandy foams toclays.

The Pineywoods vegetation area is depicted by treessuch as shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), loblolly pine(Pinus taeda), post oak,-blackjack oak, red oak, sweet-gum-(Liuidambar Styraciflua) and black hickory (Caryatexana) in the uplands and by overcup oak (Quercuslyrata),willow oak (Quercus Phellos), Texas sugarberrytis laevigata), cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia) and

bush palmetto (Sabal minor) in the bottomlands (Tharp,1926, 1939, 1952; BraunT950). The soils are usuallylight-colored, acid, and sands or sandy-loams.

The climax vegetation of the flat Gulf Prairiesand Marshes area is largely grassland or post oaksavannah. Tall bunch grasses such as big bluestem,Indiangrass, eastern gramagrass (Tripsacum dactyloides)and gulf muhly (Muhlenbergia capillaris var. f )are characteristic. Soils are generally acid sands,sandy loams and clays.

Although the Trinity River is associated with theabove vegetational areas, the vegetation type of greatconcern in this study was that of bottomland hardwoodforest. Bottomland forests associated with the Sabine,Neches, Trinity, and San Jacinto river systems occupy

large areas, and as a result, have been classified byBray (1906) and Collier (1964) as distinct vegetationaltypes. These bottomland forests are considered to bewestward extensions of hardwood forests typical of riverbottom areas to the southeast (Bray, 1906; Braun, 1950).

OBJECTIVES

The major objective of this study was to analyzeand describe representative plant communities locatedwithin ten selected study areas associated with theTrinity River. Some interarea communities were alsoincluded. In addition, preliminary checklists of woodyand herbaceous species with notations on those which wererare and endangered, were to be prepared.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Ten representative study areas within the flood-plain of the Trinity River were chosen for analysis.

"- r- . . . .. . . . . . : .. . .i

4

Their approximate location is presented in Figure 2, andthey are briefly described as follows:

1. Between Fort Worth and Dallas, west of theHighway 360 crossing of the Trinity River.

2. South of Dallas near the junction of Loop 12and the Trinity River.

3. West of Rosser, Texas, at the confluence ofthe Trinity River and the old channel of theEast Fork of the river.

4. Northeast of Kerens, Texas, at the large horse-shoe bend of the Trinity River in the vicinityof the Bruce Smith Ranch.

5. South of Highway 287 on Richland Creek.6. Southwest of Palestine, Texas, south of the

junction of Highway 79 and the Trinity River.7. Northeast of Madisonville, Texas, north of the

junction of Highway 21 and the Trinity River.8. South of Livingston, Texas, east of the junc-

tion of Highway 59 and the Trinity River.9. East of Cleveland, Texas, south of the junc-

tion of Highway 162 and the Trinity River inthe Tanner Bayou area.

10. South of Liberty, Texas, in the vicinity ofthe Liberty-Chambers county line and itsjunction with the Trinity River.

Intra- and interarea study sites were selected forwoody vegetational analyses and are referred to as com-munities. A community, as defined in this study, alludesto any assemblage of organisms (in this instance, woodyvegetation) in a given area at a given time. Communitieswere delineated on the basis of a relatively high degreeof uniformity in composition and structure, and as aresult of their occupying an area of essentially uniformenvironment.

Quantitative data were acquired for woody shrubsand trees with diameters at breast height (dbh) greaterthan 1/2 cm whereas vine and herbaceous plants were col-lected, identified, and incorporated into a checklist.The woody vegetation of all areas was analyzed by theplot method. Each plot was five meters square and situa-ted in a belt transect. Each belt transect, in turn,was composed of two rows of plots following a compassline. Woody species in each plot were identified, mea-sured (dbh) and counted. From this data, frequency, den-sity, dominance and importance value figures were ob-tained. Dominance, therefore, is based upon importancevalue (importance value is equal to the sum of the rel-ative frequency, relative density and relative dominance)when used in this study. Nomenclature for plant species Jfollowed Correll and Johnston (1970).

I

0a I tag Cok GraysJn \-

Jack on

w e olli

Pa erN

I son@ Study area

Fig. 2. Study areas and n c ounisi eaint h

turntyRier

STUDY AREA 1

Introduction

Forested areas associated with the floodplain of theWest Fork of the Trinity River between Dallas and FortWorth are relatively discontinuous. The boundary of StudyArea 1, therefore is somewhat extended. It begins justwest of State Highway 360 and its junction with the riverand prolongs westward to within the city limits of FortWorth. Field analyses were conducted during the latespring of 1974.

The topography within the communities studied wasgenerally flat although some sloughs, depressions andundulating sites were present. Geologically the area iscomposed of Alluvium deposits of Recent origin withinthe Quaternary Period. Soils of all study communitiesare of the Frio series (U. S. Department of Agriculture,unpublished data). These are silty clay soils subjectto occasional and sometimes frequent overflow. Dependingon frequency of flooding, moderate to severe limitationsexist for most recreational and cropland uses. This soilis poorly suited for dwellings and septic tanks but, onthe contrary, produces excellent yields of pasture plants(U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1964). It is also wellsuited for wildlife.

Although much of Tarrant County has been urbanized,surrounding areas in the immediate local of the studycommunities were mostly pasture and cropland. Selectivecutting of trees was generally evident in all study siteswhereas grazing by domestic livestock was observed in 4sites. It is also likely that the fifth site has beensubject to grazing in the past.

Land Use

Tarrant County, the fourth most populous county inTexas, had an estimated population of 757,900 in 1972(Texas Almanac, 1973). Between 1960 and 1970, the countyhad a populational increase of 33.1%, rising from 538,495to 716,317 (Texas Almanac, 1971). Tarrant County has adiversified urba economy. Some 1,100 factories producea variety of products, including aircraft, foods and mobilehomes. The economy is closely associated with that of theDallas urban area.

About 3/4 of Tarrant County was classified as com-mercial farm and forest area in 1967 (Table 1) (Tarrant

6

- ~ -.

0)-'-4U

Nu

0)0

.4J 0 -- .4 ON" c re

w Nq~LU M 0Wm) )ONw -rC

0o4 Ln- C~ ()~'N L wr- -4 c4 mUn e mf -- I CV) %-~ D %D qW-4 U)>1 1f -4 ,-4 .,-,--

0 0

a~ro~- w CO r- 0 C14 0> cc a 10 r 0 -- a fEU i v" ocLn r-cq e D0L )f r~-l 0m

-4 I) -0 r- -4 '~If~ rc - w nr-V~L vt .- - 'N P-1

0) 0

0)4

10

co 0-

S-4J' )0 U

UV 0 4.

cU (0 0 444'00s 04

:3 U)~ )4 003

41 0 4-)0) '

0 m)U5- .5. E

(d 0) 0 4). w 444

E 'U m3: ( 0 4150 10)4 0 '14 r. 5 r4S~-4U U10 44 to M 4) (a -4 5.$4 a ~ 54a 0 d '-I

0 M 4 .)t

(iU) U) U0 m 0.4 4) -04 4U) mU))JJ1'- 4 0 U) 4)

Ai 0E- 4 u N 0 Ic0 0E-c

8

County Conservation Needs Inventory Committee, 1967).On the average, this land contributes only $15 millionto the total annual income, which was $3,004,951,000 in1972 (Texas Almanac, 1973). Of this average annual agri-cultural -income, over 80% comes from dairy and beef cattle,hogs and poultry. Grain sorghams, small grains, cotton,pecans and peaches are also produced.

Land classified as urban and built-up increased from107,271 to 133,354 acres (24%) between 1958 and 1967 (Table1). With the population of Tarrant County rapidly growingand expanding, the 1967 urban and built-up figure is cer-tainly low in regard to 1974 land use.

The most pronounced trend in land use between 1958and 1967 was the conversion of cropland to pasture. Inthis period, cropland decreased from 232,597 to 124,061acres (47%), while pasture increased dramatically from31,940 to 167,983 acres (426%). Part of this gain was atthe expense of range, which decreased from 104,722 to61,498 acres. However, range and pasture together totaled136,662 acres in 1958 but increased to 229,481 acres in1967, a gain of 68%. Forest land, mainly confined towater courses, decreased from 55,780 to 42,424 acres (24%)in the same period. The classification "other land" whichincludes non-urban homesites, showed a gain from 11,989to 19,283 acres (61%) between 1958 and 1967.

An appraisal of potential for outdoor recreationaldevelopment in Tarrant County (Graves, et al, 1967)estimates that a high potential exists for picnicking,golf courses, historic sites and transient camping.Riding stables were given a medium high rating for devel-opment. Play areas, bicycling, fishing, natural and scenicareas, shooting preserves and water sports areas ratedonly a medium potential in this survey. Vacation cabins,cottages and homesites received a low rating because citiesare spread out over the county, and suitable uninrcorxratedareas are being used for permanent homesites. For muchthe same reason, potential for vacation site camping andvacation farms and ranches also received a low rating.

Methods and Procedures

Study Area 1 consisted of 5 study communities. A totalof 753 five-meter-square plots were analyzed in belt tran-sects with 50 plots located in Community 1, 202 in Community2, 100 in Community 3, 201 in Community 4 and 200 in Community5. The positions of belt transects within each communityare presented in Figures 3, 4 and 5.

dmlr

9

S..

Fig. 3. Location of Communities 1, 2 and 3 (C-1, C-2and C-3) and position of study transects(solid lines).

RIE

C-4-

Fig. 4. Location of Community 4 (C-4) and positionof study transects (solid lines).

C R I&P RR.

FOR K

RIE

Fig. 5. Location of Community 5 (C-5) and positionof study transects (solid lines).

12

Description of Study Sites

Communities 1, 2 and 3 were located west of Randol'lill Road just south of the junction of East FirstStreet and the West Fork of the Trinity River (Fi. 3).These communities were on three variously elevated sites.Community I was located within what may have been theold channel of the river. It is likely that this siteis wet during most of the year. A lack of herbaceousground cover was generally compensated for by a moderateamount of litter. Community 2 was situated on a moredry elevated site contiguous with Community 1 (Fig. 3).It was also characterized by a somewhat undulating topo-graphy. The most elevated of the three sites maintainedCommunity 3. The topography was flat. Grasses and sedgeswere the basic constituents of the herbaceous layer inCommunities 2 and 3 with Community 2 having the greatestamount of litter.

Community 4 was situated just northeast of thejunction of the West Fork of the Trinity River and Highway820 (Fig 4). The topography was flat with an occasionaldepression. Virginia wild rye (Elymus virginicus) andcoral-berry (Symphoricarpos orbiculatus) appeared todominate the herb and shrub layers, respectively.

Community 5 was located within the confines of thePost and Paddock Riding Club southwest of the junctionof Highway 360 and the West Fork of the Trinity (Fig. 5).The topography was generally flat but due to the presenceof a winding creek, the area appeared to be slightlyrolling. Grasses generally dominated the herbaceouslayer.

Results

Community 1

Because of the slough-like site sustaining Community1, the area was dominated by swamp privet (Forestieraacuminata) Table 2). Associated with swamp privet weresmall trees of box elder (Acer Negundo), Chinaberry(Melia azedarach) and red mu err Morus rubra) and anoccasional large tree of eastern cottonwod Ppulusdeltoides)(Tables 2 and 3). Only 5 species were recordedin Community I and they averaged almost 7 plants per plot.The community appeared more dense, however, as a resultof the branching habit of swamp privet.

-- i

13

d)

$.4 i-4

04 >

101w>

0 4)~ r= 6 . en C0

o) 0

-14

0) 43.

.6-4

o @1

4) 0 0 )

0 4-) -4NqWO V WN1

01

>1 41

04 0)

41

0 aA a r-

0 dP $4

0 tV>

41 4.

0 >~~ r4 Oi U

Fa a' o' N a'44

-4 54@>

0 0 0000004 E-4

0 @1 * @1mm

14

A

0

f41

>1 1

.4.34

00

U) CD Nr

UU

o4 1- N*

U) 4 N

U r4

U) 0

.aJ IA- N

'.0 0N Oj$o 4

09

InE0

15

Community 2

The principal species in Community 2 were Texas sugar-berry (Celtis laevigata), box elder and cedar elm (Ulmuscrassifolia) (Table 4). American elm (Ulmus americana),swamp privet, green ash (Fraxinus pensylvanica), redmulberry and cottonwood were less prevalent. An inter-esting facet of this community was the large size andfairly good size class distribution of tree species pre-sent. Large trees of American elm, cottonwood, sycamore(Platanus occidentalis) and pecan (Carya illinoinensis)were scattered throughout. A pecan and sycamore,neither recorded in plots, measured 11 and 12 feet incircumference respectively. As indicated by the smallnumber of plants per plot (3.80), and due to a ratherdense canopy, the understory was generally open.

Community 3

The vegetative analysis of Community 3 revealed theoccurrence of a cedar elm flat. The woody communityconsisted chiefly of cedar elm, with soap-berry (SapindusSaponaria), Texas sugarberry, hawthorn (Crataegus spp.)and gum bumelia (Bumelia lanuginosa) only occasionallyrecorded (Table 6). Trees were generally small (Table 7)and along with the presence of an open understory gavethe community a rather featureless physiognamy.

Community 4

Community 4 was composed primarily of cedar elmassociated with Texas sugarberry (Table 8). Green ash,soap berry and hawthorn were also somewhat prevalent.The community was rather uniform with cedar elm, Texassugarberry and green ash comprising the upper canopyand soap-berry, hawthorn and swamp privet the mid-layer.Swamp privet, however, was generally confined to wetareas within the community. Trees were generally lessthan 40 cm in diameter (dbh) (Table 9).

Community 5

As in Communities 3 and 4, Community 5 once againcontained a preponderance of cedar elm (Table 10). Texassugarberry was quite frequent within Community 5 whereasgreen ash and American elm were only occasionally recorded.Tree diameters were generally less than 50 cm (Table 11).It should be noted that there were several large pecansand American elms in the study area that were not recordedin plots.

I

• . _ .. . .

. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ..d-. . . . . . . , - " [ I . . . . . . 1 I

i6

c4r )r 00rmr -"

JD (%0164 :J-44

0> (L-)4 c' 0

0 6)0 C%4 r-4,'r-4r 01

~~ E 0i n00~r go H..- H 0>V

G) 41 4304 V VU)44 kv to 1.0 O4 Id Ol04..4 4 C- 0 0 0 r4 r q V -

4 .1 m U d 4) : 4 .

--4.- Hr to to 0

04 41 m 'i)U

r. 14 (4 N r0 0Dt)4 U)0oH'4L rlr4C 0.0 C4 OD di4 .

44 to Ii . 14 or. 0 -400 0 0 0 C; 4i

cc4)) U) f .4 -

go0) 4 104'0>1 di 0 En w

4)~d u N h - asf0000 0 to

V *. P -4 di r4 10 1.4 r.

tv r- V =Q)

4)) ).4d0 q.r4J - di4

U) 4

.. ... . f. .r- -W1 D.4L l 4 44 4'

dip 0 '- :Idij

0 .4 N 4r- -610di1)

14 ,-. U) 0 U

.. ~ ~ 2 to )0-

v A4 El-4 CC 04-A 01d-u d t- ) t

17

A

0

4JJ

-4-

00

u-I Hw

N II

4.)4

03 N 0 q 40 r-atq..

I) IA u-N -4'. V- ,-4 q. c

U)I IH04I 0 -H rr - 0 FI0 i

0 44* 0

o to

m) 4 ' r-4 (a 40

E) i >

".4 -H0 uf 1001 0cn >

oo $W)

,4 N HO.i4Af 0 HI) 4N 1 aHH

H- 4 0 41

00 4 49

00 r-4'. 40

0> ON CO m -4 r-I 0D

4-)>co ~ -qAl q 0 ~ C4 C-4J0 -4KU 4)CdP ..... .0ot- co. rN0- (D1-1l) 00

r- r=-4

4) 0

-4)

4- >>i asEIr , we

0 4-)

$4 >4 00o Jr.4 0 0 D0VCM ~r 4 m $4

4.4 *r4q e.r Ln Mr4,400

4J) 00 >1

I0 0, qw-4 -

-4 H (L)

0 4ra .-4

>1 4.1- E to

r. 0. 0~aaa -03 daMqvC C 4

CV) t~q (7 ( r44

V~ 04

.,q 02 0d 0

0r.4 -- A W4 4 '41 4.

4 0 "40 V D 00 FAP*U AA.fOf: W44~ 0 -4 (A

M Id> M9I 30 4)oW a, Id44 5.4 .4

v 0~61~ *4 14. V.G Mr-

r4i4 INg-Oq I 0 go.- 404 >O$

L) m xw H 04 E4 41

19

A

-4

,4

0.u

AA

0U)

(U C4

r) 0%

ON N- N m-

OD N.* -4QC e - r4ko ,- 4

00

wV Cr4N I

54 Id 0 >

04. 9:I -4I4 >-4

m 0

Ir- 00o M

0-4.- 4j jI

E-4 M -

20

4J: IT0 om 0 or

C.)4

10 > $4(c~'

414J SZ (4- - L DWL Wk n

000c~Uzi

0*-4 4J wr-00( N %Dq V(Y' C4 c 4J (W0... .IJ.r * 1.4 r-i

(~(r4- -0 4

r-..-440 0

41rI n r4 -WWr-4 W v M N Un $4 m2

0 -d4 Me' .4o r- r-4o0 ar-4 (N :1

a ; -4,- ;O 000000-00 0) 0 u x

C. *4)H ,- N rqI0 44

Jud -4-Cj 0 0$0

04 4)44 > 0

0 *.qto >1 41 ~ $4j

0 0d- -

r. . . . *co ~ r- f~n C ,-4 H43,

41 01r

IRV

U 9: o t mm0- *0 -A C:'004a)r

r- 1r4 V F : dU A~- r-4 -alR0 go >1 r.WOO1 )r J 4H

) C.) 1 0 11$ ) 4 0 -,

w0- r 00 01'iw- - m 4 0a W, 1 10I 4 -

IV t w 4 00 $W4IA OW .)4944$4 f:0 :0 At oa d4 0 02 cU.)

0).40 r*C, AP4 3U 014 r- H 1 10 4.

C2 0a0

4 A 1 0 54 MC t

02 U0 r4 4j 4)0Ik PC 120:3 > o O-II4IoI 0 :3f 04

E- OUr *- 02:..4FtoI0 I0I02 9U0$ 1 IV

211

A

0

-4N0

0

>1 -

.A.

C.) '.0-4 CsJ

0 )

0 IV i

0) a) 0).41 N qr O 1~- .- 4 -4

P i4 1 t Ili

0 .4.)-I

M en OD -r4M m N U)d) I 0wCjO )1

r-4 14u 04

0U

.4)-4 004

Co C)

I mm) 0 C4O * r4C4 L 4

0) 0- :5

0 0

H 010

u to, Lif

aI 90 00P 9 a

0i m))6 >10 'A4 0l44 tPW 40 40 C:

a -4 -A 9: A D0 :$ -# 4OAO~~4~~K 416 ia61 s Lo M b41)6 4419 '-6L0L00 14r-W) P-41 w I ) 0

0 tr 4 toto o to4c

4)I .V ), 4 :

227

r-4

o Cd C& 4 w- 0

04 > -4

41-

0) 0)0.1. 00g

Cd~( 0r'D> *.-4) C.,o) OO DL en .- rr-1'Io mo- M o 7 rlw Il 0$(0-t C d 'D-W m0- - - DC 4 a 4t

4-1 00 r:

go 9:-'-4

>1 0 -40 4Jr4r wL immr - -mW L V $

.14 *dC a-4 -4 WDa%- 0~ CD 010

N.-0

u -4 0 Aj000-

u >~~I 0m L vLAw 00 00Ln0 mLAOt

C. 4) *4 00~ 94 t >

0 01 . 14 _F

to Cd In 0 t>>1 ov 0o O

.- 414J-4

-4 >4

to %~

0 '.4 R-to4 -r 4

go tot0) ) r4 oa4

:j - rd> 41IV r. o >.4) 91.

23

01

0C>

0

414

LA I9-4o

r4

-4- 04

- LA

V4 U

0) 0

o 4j

u 0)U' 4~-4 m .0 ml w

r. I --4 4-0to IV4 m 94

r-4 4)P4 ow 9:40 M 1C:W 1-4r. (

-4 ( 4-4 l * 0 -44 CN4 r f-r4i-I r'j.t 4)404: 0g

>- 0 404 -

Qa ~ ~ ( I-4 te4 O r4- r-4 -r- ~I 4 :J r'I -4 0 4 4'i ',

o) 0Ar 44 AI wt

4) -HfA0#at! 4 P-04 0- wI -PI x4o , (

d.0> 0 u a- I 14)e 4 F- 0 $ 04

N a 00 C) 49 4

STUDY AREA 2

Introduction

Study Area 2 was situated in the floodplain of theTrinity River in the southeast corner of Dallas County.More specifically it was located southeast of the junc-tion of Interstate Highways 45 and 635 in the vicinityof the Fin and Feather Club and Dallas Hunting and Fish-ing Club lakes. Field analyses were accomplished duringthe spring of 1973.

Topography of the immediate study sites was general-ly flat with occasional depressions and small creeks.Geologically the area is composed of Alluvium depositsof Recent origin within the Quaternary Period. Indis-tinct low terrace deposits may also be included. Soilsin Study Area 2 are comprised of Trinity Clay. Thissoil type is poorly suited for dwellings, septic tanks,streets, light industry, and camp areas and most otherrecreational use (U. S. Department of Agriculture, SoilConservation Service, 1972).

The study sites were forested whereas surroundingareas were generally cleared for pasture, housing andgravel pit usage. Grazing by cattle was evident in onestudy site and it is likely that the other study sites

have been used for domestic grazing in the past.

Land Use

Dallas County, in which is situated the State'ssecond largest metropolitan center, had a population in1970 of 1,327,321, up sharply from 951,527 in 1960 (TexasAlmanac, 1971). Forty-eight percent of the county's to-tal area is classified urban and built-up (Table 12)(Dallas County Conservation Needs Inventory Committee,1970). While slightly over half of the total area in farmand forest land, its contribution to the income of thecounty is comparatively small-- about $11 million annual-ly out of a total income in excess of $5 billion.

Between 1958 and 1967, over 43,000 acres were putinto urban development (Table 12) (Dallas County Conser-vation Needs Inventory Committee, 1970). Over 60,000acres were taken out of row crop cultivation during thistime, and pastureland increased by nearly 59,000 acres.Rangeland decreased by nearly 32,000 acres and forestland by almost 35,000 acres. "Other lands", includingfarmsteads and rural land for residences, increased

24

I- . J L . ._. . . .

25

04

0 ON

fn 0- (D0 C n Wr

IV C4 m in - N- o

'-4 r- -W % iW W -V-

410 4

r-~~- 54j~qW OD fn~aA r. -wr-4If w r M

> co *w M C4 m) ODina Ae 1

f-)C I r-0 (n r- O r N OD4 04LU*) N (4J Cw 0 M 0- 0 .-4

>1 04 e 4 1 -

.4 0~ 4)L)- 0 U)

#V 0

-, O$4(' 0--i ~ r.0W OO N~)~~I$4 -4~ 4) 4

.. 4I Nr.4- M rO) 0A N 0 C:-4 4

14Utr t 0

0a 0 C

0 0o 4uv '.4 0 4 V4

0 0 U1 00or.k $ ) N . 0- '-4

1.0 -4 1 00040) Id r. A ,-t o

00 4 4 4 0 (

mV 0 0jk-1:4 OQ. 0 4 4d k

e4k00 0 "-45 0.4

M r4) r4 V 4r4t 490.0 O a c 4

41U 0k 0 0c iv *.a449: ,4I~ ra 0)0 r D0 1r44 M 4to 40 0 0$ .,1 0$4..4 .. #.-I 4: m 4 0

00 FAw o 4 tl 0 * l 044r- 0 000 r-4 0.4 0 4.

r4 U) 0 0 0 4k 001 4 -A

OE0 000'-40 E-4 E-40

V 0 0 *4 .d

26T

nearly 6,000 acres.

An appraisal of potential for outdoor recrea-tional developments in Dallas County (Anonymous, 1967a)stated that the large population of the county causespotential to be high for some outdoor recreationalenterprises. At the same time, however, the dense popu-lation and urban build-up adversely affect other enter-prises which depend to a great extent on the natural en-vironment. A high potential was judged to exist forplay and target areas, bicycling, picnicking, golfcourses, and riding stables. Fishing and water sportshave only medium potential due to the limited lakes andinpoundment sites and the already heavy use of existingareas. Medium potential is said to exist for vacationhomes, limited mainly by the few available water areas.Overall, Dallas County is a consumer rather than asupplier of outdoor recreation.


Three study sites comprised Study Area 2 (Fig. 6).The more undisturbed plant communities were selectedto represent the woody vegetation of this area. Theposition of study transects is presented in Figure 6.A total of 600 plots (5m2) were analyzed with twohundred being located in each study site.


Community 6 was a forest within the Fin and FeatherClub area and was located between the northern end ofthe Fin and Feather Club Lake and the Trinity River(Fig. 6). The area was flat with occasional, shallow,water-filled depressions. These depressions are pro-bably dry during most of the summer and fall. Thearea was selectively logged in 1972 resulting in theremoval of many large trees. Community 7 was locatedeast of the Trinity River between the river and DowdyFerry Road (Fig. 6). It was a flat, poorly drained sitein the vicinity of a small creek. Water stands inmuch of the area after heavy rains. Community 8 wascharacterized by a greater habitat diversity as aresult of a slightly elevated and better drained areabordering a wet flat. This site was located just eastof the junction of Dowdy Ferry Road and the TrinityRiver (Fig. 6). The forest has not been logged formany years as a result of its preservation by theDallas Hunting and Fishing Club.

A.4 -l I I i I ~ l I I

27

\ IVE M11E

CREEK

SCALE1=2000'

-I

Fig.~~~~~~ 6. Loato of Comnte 6, 7 an 8 (C 6,C-nC-8)~~~~ an poito of std trnet (sol-dlines).-- --

AND U

2 P

Results

Community 6

Pecan (Carya illinoinensis) was the dominant speciesat Community 6 associated with cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia),deciduous holly (Ilex decidua), Texas sugarberry (Celtislaevigata) and roughleaf dogwood (Cornus Drummondii)(Table 13). The forest understory was somewhat openand contained a rather uniform herb layer of sedges (Carexspp.) and violets (Viola spp.). Large trees present weremostly pecan (Table 1TY There was a fairly good speciesdiversity at Community 6 with 25 species being recorded.

Community 7

The forest comprising Community 7 was rather uni-form in species composition with only 10 species beingrecorded. Texas sugarberry, cedar elm, swamp privet(Forestiera acuminata) and green ash (Fraxinus pensylvanica)were by far the dominant species (Table 15). Osageorange (Maclura pomifera), soap-berry (Sapindus Saponaria)and honey locust(Gledtsia triacanthos) were only occa-sionally observed. Most trees in the area were less than30 cm in diameter at breast height (Table 16). Somelarge cedar elm and green ash trees were present. Exceptfor a few dense populations of cedar elm, the shrub layerwas generally open. Empirical observation indicates thatthe herb layer was composed primarily of sedges withfrequently occurring plants of buttercup (Rannunculuscarolinianus) and crow poison (Nothoscordum bivalve).

Community 8

The habitat diversity at Community 8 resulted in agreater species diversity as indicated by the recordingof 30 species. Understory vegetational layers were alsomore dense and diversified. The principal tree speciesin the area were green ash, cedar elm, deciduous hollyand roughleaf dogwood (Table 17). Shumard red oak (QuercusShumardii), pecan, eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana)and American elm (Ulmus americana) were prevalent associa-ted species. Tree diameters were generally less than50 cm although a few larger trees were recorded (Table 18).

29

U)() 0

1-4 -4 $4 I w

0) m 0 0) r4) >*:$ : -1

-4 00

- v4) 0

id.- rq re'ou qI

'4V 0)

U) 4) -4J 9:0 -9-Ia 4 r4 -4 -4 r-4 '0 > r-4

Oo4AOL fl.0Oi 4 m'0 )r0U V *- iD r0 0r0a 0% L w % V r44- D 4d - aC 1 N .4 .4to .).4

4)0 IN, 14 4)Ur.

*1 0 0 r

04) 4) "4 49:f

rq9 0 r I i

000 1. trVIrfr4r4I at0

rz (D w 0 $4 604)00 W 4> -4

04 $4 U

06 to .to I14$4-4 -

.- =1w

00

AD00

-4

Lo -n ,- -4

0. N cl ~ -4 CD 4

0.

0%

y) mA rA -4 9. N %

.1.4 VI010 '-

0 44 v - N.

44 01'0N~ -U Nn I v-

0** C1 0- 4 m4

00

r)r ' -4. 4 H r 4%.14 I 1 >

V Id 1

0

H 4 NJ 4 -i

4) 4j0

E-4A LIM)

3 1)

-4-

cm 0

0) 00.4)>0

-14 Wr 0 (n rq 4 n 4 4 r- S4.) -H . U. .od M 0 Y.aa,4 -1C 4 t0-4 O 5 0 C;0;

4.) 0 >

U4> 0 04

0 ~ ~ d 4$or.-( o0 04 0-VWa WMr4 4

44 r-4 C4C wa 4 D0 I

0 4J- r- 0 DC ;C;C ; %

.4.) 0

>0yNo *n %~--o w oo o o P

It P ~ n Jeo 04NNCF-

.1.) 1-40 4

-41

>) 0 U

1400 '-4 4

LA' 41 43 C 44 c I

to r.~ it~ 4 C 0) 1Ai0- P-44 *e4 W ~10 Q ui r4

0) V4 a, -P4 toI~ 0$40 rq r4 to L04 l0 0

E4~ wn 54 0~~~LA P-4

4 $4 44 -

32

0

0

9--4

to

v-4

r-4 qw-

qw 9.-I4)-

N~ N~ en 4 9-i4 4 .4

0 00Ifl r-4 N 0-1U)4

0 04) 0

oJ 44 "4 1

0

LU -A

9-44

od W14 N~ 4.4. ((P-4 $-9 4u inAIA u 0fq4 0

-4 4- to 0 -I

IV~~L $4404IX04 0 -10

ch

..... .... ... ...

33 I.0 L

• ,-I i-)

m r4 -10r-%D-4 Ln V 01

). .,- . .i . . . .r.l0m T m> M M -4 ,- - L1.,I

'0C%0Mr- DL CD -)1( d n-4.. I

LU ed- U)4 I

"- E % % C4 V 4Mr %0 LU C (o 0 H V-4P-4 N 0 0) > 1A

(d E) 14 U I

.~~~r .. . . 0 -11.I -- No o®140) :, L"J

04.-9 '0- O5)ff l~

' 'I id

-44- -,-0 4 l w :

Ajr- mco i o ,4 ci n .n LoI$4

0 /-"4 01 t .M -

. . . , ' a

N 0 --o a C; C;, 4 0 r

U 0 U )Ill

0 0u

4) 0> Hi-

0ni nuiL *Cn c~H' , o cD e'4O-4'.4 0 "'1-4. U) .. * . * *) *) 4* * 4'

*3 op CN ,-4 40o orcg 1r-4 Uc,4 oI r-4 LUNr- l

wo 41 :3.S0

w 14 ~ 04WriL LU . 4

LALLIAAii V9 C -0Ito'4

>0 A r 0 0415LU N4 A FA4

01 0 .wr- 404. H $4 *44 Olt

k 00 - UA I : 4 1540 >' > 4 o o

r:t t* n f4: U- 44 P41 4(>1-4 f94 "q4 wI I 04

04) ff% toV0) >94 -A 4 ?A : 0t 41A11 "

P- '0 x 1204) I -i -'4w 41 440 $~0U~4

WO P-4 islo LoNU .- 4i '4t -4 0*" Cfl4.

to)0 m

4-) 4t

:: 04uIr

0 :3

I c

S410 U)OC 0

0AEI>4JI -

FA -

.AA~

13 V-4---~ 0r--- ____

35

A

'-4

0

0

- ,- (N

>1 14-)4

.4Dko 0- -4 (N 4

- n -4r-

4-)

M -4-40 H q

q r4 e-IU))

.in -We Vr n 1 oU IH 4 LA

Ifl

(d. 1.044 i ~ O' 04

4- O

0 r-4 aUn0 n - we

- -4-44QJ0 I

4-> 0 LA44 ac4~ ~o -I r-4 O 4 fd $4. (

A k 0 4) 0l

r-I to

4 x :$ 0 I 4 4

IV 04P

-4 44 01 E-44

STUDY AREA 3

Introduction

Study Area 3 was located northwest of Rosser, Texas,in southwestern Kaufman County and in eastern EllisCounty. The study sites, situated on both sides of theTrinity River, were south of the confluence of the riverand its East Fork. Field analyses were accomplishedduring the spring of 1974.

Topographically, the study sites were flat withoccasional sloughs or depressions. All were located inthe flood plain between the levees and the river.Geologically, the area was composed of Alluvium depositsof Recent origin within the Quaternary P-eriod. Thesoils were Trinity clay which is a soil subject to fre-quent flooding, has a very slow permeability and thuspoor drainage. Because of its characteristics and setting,the Trinity clay soil is poorly suited for dwellings,local roads, cropland, septic tanks and intensive recrea-tional use. It has fair suitability for wildlife, wood-land and pasture (Meade, 1970). The study areas wereforested while adjacent land, at least that which is pro-tected by levees, is generally used for pasture and cropland.

I Land Use

In 1970, Kaufman County had a population of 32,392and a total annual income of $80,347,000 (Texas Almanac,1971). In 1972, there were an estimated 347--W residentswith a total income of $95,166,000 (Texas Almanac, 1973).Mineral production, chiefly oil, stone and gas, yieldedonly about $2,828,000. On the average, farm income gener-ates another $15 million annually, three-fourths of thisfrom livestock and the remainder mostly from cotton andgrain. Although many Kaufman County residents work inthe Dallas metro area, the county does support some variedmanufacturing enterprises of its own.

Only 23,950 acres of Kaufman County's total 511,916acres were classified as non-commercial in 1967 (Table 19)(County Conservation Needs Inventory Committee, 1967).This was up from the 17,903 acres in 1958, due to relativelysizable increases both in urban and built-up and smallwater areas.

In the period between 1958 and 1967, cropland decreasedsharply by almost 114,000 acres or about 44%, from 256,945to 143,077 acres (Table 19). Most of this area has beenconverted to pasture, which increased over 132,000 acres

36

I L " : i r' : I I -- - ---- " .. .. __ -- I I

37

C a-W 0OC NI 7 O'C%4 004r- C 4O ('OC 4 00V%. N WN 0

>1 M r Lu r- r L a %D%0 44J 4M. . . .4

0 L(' m Au: 0

rI 00 Cp*6n " 0%r- r4OnO m - Aa r-NO % V W in0

4j o~ CD r -Ii V %0t ONV4. r- %D - n M S4 5

0w 0 40

(D)

41 .~O' . %O . .. . .~ 4)0 *- N -4 (n - -k O

-0 0 0 H4 C44 CD qO qw

>4 $4

OV4) 'wo %O-q O oomoo $4~

0n V 0'ON 0OI CIA Go0,m

r.0 0o' > * D- =

ca .- 4 F-4 r- EN.0 0M kn O0 H 9-4 Ln c,4 oL -4 0

-A IAN440 4)

>. 00 w Z044

U) r.0 U4*df 0 -4 go0e-I4 1 04

tgo 41 4

4J $4 ) 020'o 0o $4 0

r. 0 54f 0 r 0 '44 :

>,I :3 H UCfl4 '0 Ar4-)04 U 1oto r 44 -r4

044 u 04) to0u$

U~ :301 4 1.4 )000 0. ~ .0 4U 0

u U 0 0)54 44)

0. IV44i40 -4 V A go 0:3d 00- : o 0 r0d44 .- to 5.4 9 U u 09

d)OH 54 0 54

0'. 0 00-4 14) F 44

P4U) 4 A4 H400 r.14 $40 o00 05$44 004 to

gil-a 40 u0 "qE-4

...........

38

or about 86? from 157,339 to 289,737 acres. Woodlands,of little commercial value in Kaufman County, are beingcleared. Forest acreage decreased from 80,000 acres in1958 to 46,759 acres in 1967,

"Other land", which includes sites for non-urbanresidences and weekend homes, declined slightly from 8566to 8393 acres between 1958 and 1967 (Table 19). This isin contrast to the marked acreage increase evidenced inmost counties along the Trinity River. It may reflectKaufman County's general lack of scenic rural homesitesand the unfavorable engineering characteristics of itsheavy Clay soil.

An appraisal of potential for outdoor recreationaldevelopments (Anonymous, 1967c) considers Kaufman Countyas having limited outdoor recreational attractions. Thegreatest asset is its location only 30 miles from Dallasand 65 miles from Ft. Worth where large populations,enjoying slightly above average incomes, furnish a marketfor outdoor recreation. The county borders the northerntip of Cedar Creek Reservoir and contains two reservoirsof its own with a combined area of 1750 acres and 40smaller lakes averaging 40 acres in size. Limitingfactors are the hot summer climate, the limited scenicbeauty, the lack of underground water over most of thecounty, and the heavy clay soils which are poorly drainedand sticky following rains.

Small game hunting is the only significant outdoorrecreational pursuit appraised as having high potentialfor development. Camping, picnicking and field sports,waterfowl hunting, riding stables, and golf courses aredeemed as having only medium potential. Fishing and watersports are the most popular existing attractions but rateonly medium potential along with vacation cabins andhomesites due to crowded, heavy use of existing sites anda lack of remaining locations for water impoundments.

Ellis County has experienced a rapid growth rate inthe last few years. A 1972 estimate placed the populationat 50,900, up from 46,638 in 1970 and 43,395 in 1960 (TexasAlmanac, 1971 and 1973). The total income is increasing-as well, rising from $113,339,000 in 1970 to $155,149,000in 1972. On the average, agriculture contributes $24million annually, 60% of which is from crops, includingcotton, sorghums, other grains, and pecans. Cattle, hogs,horses, poultry, and some sheep are also produced.Agribusiness is an important source of income, and thecounty boasts 25 gins, 15 grain elevators and 7 feedlots.Ellis County also has various manufacturing concerns.

d . . . . _ -

31)

A3ditionally, many of the county's residents are employedin Dallas.

Of Ellis County's total area of 604,302 acres, 46,720were classified as non-commercial in 1967 (Table 19) (EllisCounty Conservation Needs Inventory Committee, 1970). Ofnote is Bardwell Reservoir with 3,570 surface acres andthe rather large figure of 15,706 acres in small waterareas, 2 to 40 acres in size.

Over half, or 303,044 acres of the commercial landarea of Ellis County was classified as cropland in 1967.This is down about 23% from the 1958 figure of 392,447acres. Forest land declined from 26,308 acres to 2,242acres between 1958 and 1967. Land lost from this usage isgoing into livestock production. Between 1958 and 1967,pasture increased from 144,427 to 175,669 acres, whilerange went from 0 to 69,699 acres. Range and pasture com-bined thus increased by 100,941 acres, or about 70%, duringthis time.

While urban and built-up land increased only moder-ately, from 28,110 acres in 1958 to 29,594 acres in 1967,the classification "other land" had a much greater increaseboth percentagewise and in actual area (from 2,566 to 6,928acres). This was due chiefly to the great number of non-urban homes being built in the county prior to 1967. Inaddition, according to local Soil Conservation Servicepersonnel, the last 4 or 5 years prior to 1974 have seena tremendous growth in the number of non-agricultural small(5 to 10 acre) landowners. These observers feel that per-haps 1/5 of Ellis County has gone into rural developmentscatering to people from the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

An appraisal of potential for outdoor recreationaldevelopment in Ellis County (Anonymous, 1967b) considersEllis County's proximity to large population centers, thehigh average income in these urban centers and the county'sabundant small reservoirs as elements favoring the develop-ment of outdoor recreational enterprises. A number oflimiting factors exist, however, including the lack ofscenic and natural areas, unfavorable soil properties anda lack of habitat for most game animals. The survey esti-mates that golf courses and shooting preserves have a highpotential for development. Vacation cabins and homesites,camping, picnicking and field sport areas, fishing, smallgame hunting, scenic areas, riding stables and water sportsareas rated only a medium potential. Low potential exists Ifor development of natural and historic areas and for biggame hunting.

I

40


Three study communities were selected within StudyArea 3. The location of each community and the positionof study transects therein is shown in Figures 7 and 8.Two-hundred and two plots wrere analyzed in Community 9,205 in Community 10, and 219 in Community 11 resulting ina total of 626 plots.


Community 9 was located in Kaufman County near theconfluence of Red Oak Creek and the Trinity River (Fig. 7).Two intermittant creeks transected the flat topography ofthis study site. Community 10 was situated northeast ofSand Lake which, in turn, is just northwest of Highway 34(Fig. 8). The immediate topography of this study site wasflat although sloughs, probably resulting from the buildingof levees, were present in the vicinity. Community 10 wasin Ellis County as was Community 11. Community 11 wasestablished near the junction of Highway 34 and the TrinityRiver. The topography was flat with an occasional depres-ion. Although not evident in Community 9, it is likelythat all study communities, at one time or another, weresubjected to selective cutting.

Results

Community 9

The forest comprising Community 9 was dominated byTexas sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), green ash (Fraxinuspensylvanica) and cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia) associatedwith occasional trees of soap-be-rry (Sapindu Saponaria)and red mulberry (Morus rubra) (Table 20). Other specieswere less common. -fw fa-irly large trees were present,but most had dbh less than 40 cm (Table 21). Growth wassomewhat dense with an average of about 13 trees or shrubsper plot. A total of 20 species were recorded in thiscommunity.

Community 10

Community 10 was also composed primarily of Texassugarberry, cedar elm and green ash (Table 22). A ratherunique feature of this community was the presence of largeshrubby poison ivy (Rhus toxicodendron). Three-hundredforty-two plants with dbh greater than 1/2 cm were recordedcausing poison ivy to be a codominant in the community(Table 23). Other somewhat abundant species were rough-leaf dogwood (Cornus Drummondii), soap-berry and deciduous

A

41

EA EA ST I

SCALE- 1"- 2000'

C-9 s

Fig. 7. Location of Community 9 (C-9) and position ofstudy transect (solid line).

LLI

4,A

vs/

dop 4

Fig. 8. Location of Communities 10 and 11 (C-10 andC-li) and position of study transects (solidlines).

him

43

-4 0

A-) $4 (

0 ( ,o,0 CN 0 0 . 4

1--4

>) C4G om 0I nC)G)- Q0: 4

U < . .=, oo i0 . . . . . . . . . . .

r 4 4.) CdP r-f of - 1 - 0 ON C;1 -1 - 4 en I a,4) > I

'4)0

U4

>4 >14-U) rq4.) fnU 0%L 4r 4V%00 3 n 4 0 $4aJ4- . . . . . . .

r- -e-4.- o o R)'a44) > :1

0.4 4J 0rd lU I.

44 ) 4 -,, -

0 >1r 0 VA .

4 I r-4~ V 1 M ~ W VM n -'-4V 0.w o

.V404 %0 - L.0 P 4 l 0rgo N,. . . . . . . . w 0a o4.)L4 r4 v-4 O O0 ,D00 u 0iA

o 0

r.>r )O N% 00 % %M1111 -0r f0 ON

r. V-4 4.)-l0 4, 4) 4 0 0

'4 >i.

> 0L%0 n VN H P4 F

.4.3 4V) I'dUA. 5.. 4 1-0

* z.u ' f la4

~ .14

."I -M4 0 "4 YA

4-) '0 r-4 .g4' IvI@ d1t 0 S: 4.1 4) 5$4 -

0 0 0~~.1 rkf oV

o .054 VA ~ CAw44.44 .,. 4)is C 5 I0 A~ 4 le P

,To 1. so4 W t) 1 W0 54 '4 4

to) Mw4 0 6.- 41

rq _ 00 $ r .

d3l

44F

A

r--

r- ,- .4 C4

4

-. 44'0L

40

r-4 ul cn m 0%

V -H)

43 -.4 0(d U qw (4~ r4 10 %c 4;IL I .'-l V40 4.-4

1.4 (n

4)

-'- C4 W -4 0r-4 m4U

S N C404 -.4

C4 0 n 0%0 0 "I LM W0 h N V-)

4J I flON.- ~4 -V-0r-4-

"4Lf O-4 01 rlO-4 91%44 LM OUin -4 fn -4 M -4 qo% 0 0%

0 .-4 0 r-4 ( 4 -4 -l 09-444

0

r-4

to *1 r F.> -o4 -.4 A-41 0 r. 0 U) )

> 60 u~*b -to CA 14 4 r -4

0 . 0 UuuV-4a

'-4~$ tO41 U

IU9 44 ) 4 *

45,

41.0~ ~ ~~~0 LM- Wfn"( 1-4- -

*6-44 E

'0 H, l

0)0

4J~d -4~4 O @V

r. r.r-4 4 r r4 0 0

1014

a1 00

to4 1'0 001

>1 0

uI .4) u f4~ 0 4

ed -, 0d ~ W ~ W I

Id4 ty -6r 4 r4 r-4 0 N t0_ 00) U 04

1.4 4)) '-4 0 3

o4 >i 0,

*~~~v V.4~,0 0 0 11 . 0

0~ 0 r

10

:: .C 54 0 4~

$4 > -4>>1 r14~~M 4) "4-U401

to toP 0 IF 14 a .40 90A >14 r4 4 $1>4

10 0 0 r.i- r

0 000

ra) ,ra U 01 4 t4 $4 90

to Id r4 6 ,

C4 t4 $ CO 0 OO U 4L4I

C)r0A

0

Ch-4-

0

N -4 -4

4.14

.- i v4-4

to w Iu W2

-4

4.2 *4.)

C) a,

a, Cl N OD"4)

N NN r- 4 0 kv CA -4O0 %0

-44

04 0 I4r-4 Ln M %D"am D0 C D O

0oC q- l r..4 N .f-4 0

'4-4

0

-4 P40

U) 0u*r

rd rd 0 H~ U 0

N 02 0~I > a,).,., 02 f r54 04~~ Id 4>, w. 0'121I Id 2 (d

0- U JJZ 1 14

47

holly (Ilex decida). Almost all of the trees reccrded haddbh less than 40 cm (Table 23). A total of 20 specieswere recorded.

Community 11

Three species dominated Community 11 (Table 24).Green ash was the principal species in association withcedar elm and Texas sugarberry. These same 3 speciesdominated Communities 9 and 10. A total of 18 specieswere recorded in Community 11 with an average of about 7recorded plants per plot. Very few trees had dbh greaterthan 40 cm (Table 25).

I

II" T-

|,i

0_

(U~~ X i.

Clii) 44-14

'o

U> ~ m wa m(')c'MONMLn~ IV C0 *.4 .C.C ; ;

o ~ t M)d M O'00' - 0-4

_4 0 > 0

in 00 z E)1 IO 0 - 0

4J -I- rO $4 M0lzU) dp LA4 4 ,-4O00(c4 0 0 :j t

43 L4 itr4-4 0C) 3 04 9 -00 -I > 5W$

$4 >4 01 ri (ot" -4 uC:-

U) o oo C O-400!0( 9-! a- w -4 d

C) 00 (U 4C D D0C C 4a

4J 4) 0 40 ->1) m) (Uf

on ooo -tT Ln cN 0N~ c:4 r-r % 0 0'r

(aU- 4) dP 4% nL M r4 r-4Lt 0 0 a- 4 IId0 M C14 -4 0D '0 0 0O

0)4 0)0 ~ - > 0-

41 r. (oI'00(0 -4I 14 U0

>1 41 4 (dI

-4$ 4-4 : 04J (U 0, ' A

04) U) wn44~ -,-i 04 u

(U(I 41 ) w d0q 4

01 0 0 ) UI 4.) *-4E

44 l-4 IU14 (U to U0~

to3> C::E >U) 4 0~ i rd 0to tv .f A 03P3 P- r4V- wW

-'4 r4 U) J 004 hi x A1 o $

(a 1 4) $ 0g 4 4(UE~ 4 ( 0~O U 4) :3 3

0.. 0(U.-4 0 P 49

amI l

49)

A

41 .z.HJ

C)'- 0

:C>WIi

04-)

U) tf'

Li n 4 .-4 Lf4 rl1- ~C4

4.) *-4 IM0 4 \C - 441 N N NC I - 04

o- r-4V C~

0

41-

(V) -4 4

0H.u 0N -1~-,- gor-

0 4 -.4r 0-4q 04

0

> 0 (Aol tD-4 Nl 4 o)w1

to 04 -l

T

S"'UDY ARE A 4A

Introduct ion

Sturly Aroa 4A was situated north of the junction ofHighway 31 and the Trinity River in the vicinity of Tool,Texas. More soecifically, it was located in HendersonCounty on the Bruce Smith Ranch and in Navarro County nearthe junction of the spillway from Cedar Creek Reservoirand the Trinity River. Field analyses in Study Area 4Awere accomplished in the spring of 1974.

Topographically, the study sites were flat with occa-sional sloughs and depressions. Geologically, the areaconsists of Alluvium deposits of Recent origin within theQuaternary Period. The soils of the study communities inStudy Area 4A were Trinity clay. Although fertile, thissoil is so frequently flooded that cropland production istoo uncertain to be practicable (Meade, 1970). Because offlooding and also the soil's slow permeability, poor drain-age, high shrink-swell potential, and other characteristics,the Trinity Clay soil is not suited for dwellings, septictanks, or intensive recreational use. It is fairly wellsuited for woodland and pasture.

Land Use

Study Area 4A was located in 2 counties, Henderson andNavarro. Because land use data for Navarro County is pre-sented in connection with Study Area 5, it is not includedhere. Henderson County's estimated 27,900 people had a totalannual income in 1972 of $76,930,000. Some $44,908,000 ofthis was derived from oil, gas, clays, sand and gravel.Agriculture contributed about $11 million. Cattle, hogs,horses and poultry were the source of over 90% of thisagricultural sum, while other income was from crops in-zluding grain, fruits, vegetables and pecans. Additionalincome in the county was derived through manufacturing,agribusiness, recreation and timber.

In 1967, non-commercial land totaled 23,803 acres outof Henderson County's total of 603,264 acres (Table 26)(County Conservation Needs Inventory Committee, 1967).The increase from 1958's 20,602 acres was almost entirelydue to the greater urban and built-up area in 1967.

Within the commercial land group, cropland declinedin the same period from 186,942 to 42,888 acres (Table 26).This represented a decrease of over 144,000 acres or about77%. A much slower decline was foreseen in 1958, whenit was predicted that by 1975 there would be 90,280 acresof cropland in the county (County Conservation Needs

50

51

U

,-4 .-

0430 0

Aj 41

%0- 0 %O co r-4I fn

0 C4 w M C V 0 W w

o.m m, C4 C en C4

0 N %.0-g O'*

C4 r qr -4

0

0 ?A

> 0M ON Nm( ON OD0 0t

C:O 0 V 41

" ) 0% * * S 5,. = .4

0 14o 0M%(4 ,- . t A -4 14

m 4o

0 1

0 .> 04

44

4) 0 0

00. 4 41 4.)

4 ) 4

0o0 0 41.4 00 0

r.3 0044:iq1 m to

0 1 0 tou3 p Ar4 0)

0. 043 0 04 0 f

Z.00w 04 to A 01

0 4 0 01 4 '14-

(a0 00 09.4

044 9 r:.- I9 U 4

rd 4) IVr4 1 $-40US0 ~ 10 V4

C4 cd 4 4J 4) 4)

0 0

E-1 E-44

52

Inventory Committee, 1958). At the same time, forestacreage dropped 24% from 256,358 to 193,800 acres, wellover 62,000 acres. Most of the acreage lost by these twocategories went into pasture land1 the largest singleland use in 1967. Pasture acreage increased fron 121,369to 310,219 acres. This amounted to a gain of nearly189,000 acres or almost 154%.

Due to the great popularity of weekend homesites andrural residences around the lakes of the county, the cate-gory "other land" increased by almost 19,000 acres or about133% from 13,940 to 32,554 acres (Table 26). This landuse can only become more important in the future as urbanresidents seek recreation and relaxation outside of theircities.

Henderson County offers a number of attractions tooutdoor recreation seekers (Finch, Bollinger and McLauchlin,1967) and Dallas, Fort Worth, Tyler and Waco all lie within50 to 150 miles of the county. Henderson County hasattractive scenery, sandy soils which favor development,and an abundance of water impoundments. Cedar CreekReservoir, Lake Athens, and Lake Palestine lie within thecounty or on its borders.

Water sports, fishing and picnicking have been appraisedas having high potential for development (Finch, Bollingerand McLauchlin, 1967).. Hunting, camping, riding stables,shooting preserves and golf courses are estimated to havemedium development potential. Vacation cabins and home-sites were rated as having medium potential for develop-ment in 1967. Demand for weekend and vacation homes seemsto be constantly increasing, however, especially near watersports areas. In view of Henderson County's proximity toDallas-Fort Worth, its many acres of water and shoreline,its scenic attractiveness, and the already heavy buyingof land by Dallasites in less attractive counties closerto Dallas, it would seem that weekend homes will becomemore and more numerous and will constitute an increasinglyimportant land use within the county.


Three study communities (12, 13 and 14) representedStudy Area 4A. The location of these communities andposition of transects therein are presented in Figures 9and 10. A total of 624 plots were analyzed with 204 inCommunity 12, 204 in Community 13 and 216 in Conmunity 14.

Lot4

53

C-1 2

C- 13

TWIN LAKES

pig. 9. Location of Comunities 12 and 13 (C-12 and

C-13) and position of study transects (solid

lines).

. . .... ,I.

SCALE - r' 20M0

Fig. 10. Location of Community 14 (C-14) and positionof study transect (solid line).

55


Communities 12 and 13 were located in HendersonCounty just west and northwest of the Twin Lakes on theBruce Smith Ranch (Fig. 9). These sites were both flatwith an occasional depression or slough. The forestswere generally open as a result of a sporadic shrub layer.Cattle grazed within these study sites and past selectivecutting was evident. Community 14 was on a big bend ofthe Trinity River in Navarro County just southwest ofthe confluence of the Cedar Creek Reservoir spillway andthe river (Fig. 10). Because of flooding, and waterrunning through a cutoff (Fig. 10), cattle were notallowed to graze northeast of the cutoff. As a result ofnon-grazing in Community 14, grass and forbs were waisthigh. This community has been selectively cut in thepast.

Results

Community 12

Cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia) was the most frequentand abundant tree or shrub species recorded in Community 12with Texas sugarberry (Celtis laevigata) and gum bumelia(Bumelia lanuginosa) being less prevalent (Table 27).Swamp privet (Forestiera acuminata) was common in sloughareas. Little species diversity existed in this community,with only 9 species recorded. Trees were generally smalland scattered with most having dbh less than 40 cm (Table28). There were only 1.46 plants per plot.

Community 13

Community 13 was composed primarily of cedar elmassociated with occasional trees of green ash (Fraxinusaensylvanica) and soap-berry (Sapindus SaponariaTi(ETe29). Because transects crossed a rat er extensive slough,swamp privet was the second dominant species. Trees werescattered with only 1.47 trees per plot being recorded. .-Only 10 species were recorded in Community 13 and withthe exception of cedar elm, diameters of trees weregenerally less than 40 cr. (Table 30).

Community 14

Principal species in Community 14 were cedar elm,hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), green ash and Texas sugarberry(Table 31). Swamp privet, found in a swampy depression,and roughleaf dogwood (Cornus Drummondii) were less fre-quent. A greater species Tlversity existed within

A

56

$4 0'

0 m 0

.0 U en 0% w 0% &O r- 0%

C.,~ ~ ~ , Id ... .

oJ 4 dP 4 C4 4)

0)0

> 01

Id 0

P9

41) 0% 0

0 4I0

q 4

H 0

>1 0 $4~J~O-4 O 9 I

4.1- e4An0%Or4 -00 4" r- t

4J 4

to r4~%o~~ 9

0Hi 4).4,4

.94 1 4 -4n

oo 4) r.r 04

- 0

'0 44H

,a).

C41

194

to 40 .44 H

IIi 0040~~ go'A >

w 0 C

161 a aI I}0

41 941 o$4~ 61 QP 'P

0 -

57

A

0

>1%

4.)4

4.)- 0 CD

U)n

0 N -

toQo '-4

4) 10

10 e0

0 -4 ff O C~ q~ r-4

to

U)

0

to 0 o

,40 0 >

-4 461 0 V-4

0.r 44 CP: L o0 W

Ir 14114 Av$4f to >

to 0 1 I

to0)

.4.) :5

0 t 0 D0C4 -O> 0-4 e

.- 4

0 0)4) C4

o ~~4)d9 IlW ,- o o01-4 04

.P44

?A 0

4) 1-f 0

>001

'-A 4)0;a 4c;

4))0 %00 -W0

0 * O O0O- -

4)-0

0Vd >q

-. 4 .)

fd4)dp44 4 ~4ao0 0 14

C) 0nr.r4 1.A

(D $34 >

rl-V4

4) I:I

to I~ 4)

r4~ to.5 .

>1>

4)-4

OD

U U)0 o

i-4 rA r4

to I %

4) *d -00 w2 L '. -

U) 0tv o04 1-4 W

00

.r I AL M ~ ~ CI H~

44 I (4to H-

0 r-i0rl4

0)0

.-. 4 g>$ 0 M rU)l to9:0 0

U)45 44 V

0) > >to *** I t)

o4 0 d a4$

41

$4 0 0 4

(0 r- wiol - C

> N -0:

%0 0 0nc - 0 -

to -4 q -4 O >4O~H

r-44 H0 Q0

0r 0 .

p4 -4-4 0 0o

H- .d WP a;C 9;19A i i

04 >40) -'4

44 4-1r4Hr-0 O 0 L Ln %omw~ aDe l-4q~ H - H JE3 041

rd C! 00 00 00 0 qq1V l-!194-0 00 0 0D0a00a .Ur

to >.4) 0 d 1)0a 00 -.

r0 *r4 0 * . . . . * .

0 024 0 044>1

rq4V go

C.) c0T

03d r ; *; ; *; *; 0, 4 A.)

)0 -r $-- I 2.4

P4C

04

-4 0P. -. 4I

0 d 0 044-4 4 > ) go r 1 4> r- )t

go0.> dr -4r.9 1 0 0 to440 404 )t7 y ar4 ) to * )4

m to :1 1fd400 T

4 dn 0arl 1 - 0 d

I4$ 44 P-4 U 0ft :M) 1414 4) U) 0 9 4 1

Community 14 than was found in Communities 12 and 13, asevidenced by the recording of 15 species. There were4.66 trees or shrubs per plot and they were generallysmall (dbh less than 40 cm) (Table 32).

62

-4

0 Ln

4)1

CA - 0 0fn0eis4 04 9u v

0 r4

"4 '.4 '

o '4 t 6

I4 El

00

'-44 0

0 %4

.4 .4'-0

0* 0

.94owNP

-4 -V-- -- --

STUDY ARFA 4B

Introduction

Study Area 4B was in southeastern Henderson Countyon the Stephens Lake Ranch. Although normally a part ofthe floodplain of the Trinity River, the area at presentis protected by a levee. Field analyses were made duringthe spring of 1974.

The topography of the study sites was flat withoccasional sloughs or depressions. Geologically thearea contains Alluvium and Fluviatile terrace deposits,of Recent and Pleistocene origin, respectively, withinthe Quaternary Period. The soils were Kaufman clay,Wrightsville and the Axtell-Wrightsville complex (U. S.Department of Agriculture, unpublished data).

The Kaufman soil is a somewhat poorly drained, veryslowly permeable bottomland black clay occurring onlevel to gently sloping floodplains. Because of Kaufmanclay's liability to flooding, high shrink-swell potentialand wetness, it is poorly suited for dwellings, septictanks, local roads and most recreation uses. It hasgood suitability for woodland and for woodland wildlife.If it were not for the flood hazard aspect, this soilcould be productive for cropland and improved pasture.

The Wrightsville is a level, poorly drained, veryslowly permeable soil consisting of silt loam over siltyclay. The soil is seasonally saturated with water. TheWrightsville soil, because of its wetness, slow permeabilityand high shrink-swell potential, has severe limitationsfor dwellings, local roads and developed recreational uses.It has fair suitability for woodland and cropland use. Itis suitable for wetland wildlife and has a fairly goodsuitability for improved pasture.

The Axtell-Wrightsville complex consists of closelyassociated pockets of the Wrightsville soil, describedabove, and the Axtell soil. The Axtell soil has a finesandy loam surface with clay below 6 inches. Limitationsare the high shrink-swell potential and the low permeabilitywhich cause the soil to be poorly suited for dwellings,septic tanks, local roads and camp and play areas. It hasonly fair suitability for cropland and is not considereda commercial woodland site. Good potential exists forrangeland wildlife. Production potential is medium tohigh for improved pasture.

63

.. .

64.

Land use information for Henderson County was pre-sented in connection with Study Area 4A and, therefore,will not be repeated in this section. Much of the landsurrounding Study Area 4B has been cleared for pastureand cropland and the study area itself is grazed by live-stock. It is likely that selective timber cuttings havebeen made within the study area in the past but manylarge trees are still present.


Three study sites were representative of Study Area4B. The location of each site and the position of tran-sects therein is presented in Figure 11. There were 402plots analyzed in the 3 study sites with 168 located inCommunity 15, 134 in Community 16 and 100 in Community 17.


Community 15 was located just southwest of Long Lakeon the Kaufman clay soil (Fig. 11). The site was flatwith an occasional depression or intermittant creek.Communities 16 and 17 were situated directly east of LongLake (Fig. 11). These sites probably contained an inter-mingling of both the Wrightsville and Axtell-Wrightsvillecomplex soils. The topography is flat with some slightlyelevated and better-drained sites.

Results

Community 15

Community 15 consisted chiefly of cedar elm (Ulmuscrassifolia), Texas sugarberry (Celtis laevigata) andgreen ash (Fraxinus pensylvanica -associated with decid-uous holly !Ilex decidua), hawthorn (Crataegus spp.) andhoney locust (Gledtsia triacanthos) TbTle 33). Thecommunity had a fairly good species diversity, with 21species being recorded, and a medium density, with about7 trees or shrubs per plot (Table 33). Although a fewlarge trees were present, most had dbh less than 40 cm(Table 34).

Community 16

Community 16 generally displayed a two-layered phy-siognomy with post oak (Quercus stellata), white ash(Fraxinus americana), cedar elm and Texa sugarberry com-prising the upper canopy and deciduous holly, hawthornand transgressives of the upper canopy forming a shrub

I t

I1. .- " J |

65

i --- i

SCALE- 1"= 2000"

THECUTOFF

STEPHENSLAKE

C-16 C-17

OG

LAKEC-15

TRINITYYE.

Fig. 11. Location of Communities 15, 16 and 17 (C-15,C-16 and C-17) and position of study transects(solid lines).

66

4)E.) id 4

41 r-M n-4W r-4 Cn r- I44

M

0u c

> WWW---A0. *r) 0 *p * *4 *4 v * m *- *- w .

o) 0

(E:31$4*4 fa

go t dp w 4 r4 n 0 00N CDen r 4 r-4 E44.) N N *- ON 5 5C:P IAUO Nr.-

0 0)0 a, 0540 A rI o -m -co Inc vriL %w 1

44 ., er-L o r MI 0 N 5461- twi. 0 IL.. JU..0 0- - -a00 '43 a 04

0 la -4

.44

4) f- 44--

67

r-4I

1 -4 N.-m

I-I

s-4

M qw

0I s4 44 jVi P.4

C14

M4 aU in c) in r-I

1r 9. *

14 P42 v co%4) o - c n 4o~ .Css4M N. r4 0-o P- '- 41

f'*1 0

to 0

4 I0-4V

V V4 .4

> 41

044 WOO it0( a (4 fl Ool V u0-4l4 0

a > 0 a 0 r4

r 4 0x44foo

LY0ODA-

68

to mid-layer (Table 35). The occurrence of post oak andother more upland species such as southern blackhaw(Viburnum rufidulum) and redbud (Cercis canadensis) isapparently the result of the more sandy, elevated andbetter drained soils of this site. Because this is abottomland site, the possibility of these post oak treesbeing bottomland post oak (Quercus similis) cannot beoverlooked, but characteristics favored post oak. Diametersof trees in the community were generally less than 50 cmin dbh but some larger trees were present (Table 36).There were 8.5 woody plants per plot and a total of 28species in Community 16.

Community 17

Cedar elm was by far the dominant species in Community17 (Table 37). Other prevalent species were bottomlandpost oak, white ash and deciduous holly. Eighteen specieswere recorded at this site with an average of 4.52 plantsper plot. Some large trees were present but most had dbhless than 40 cm (Table 38).

II

'II

d

69

>>1

000 1-fC0We' W . .44

MJ A 4 0A

a) .. 404*d0 > 0% 4Dm) A 39

4j r. U 4C ;r45t

M4 C4bd *4.04j0 >0 ,4 Id 5* 4

0- u4 -V$4 $40

or wi 0'.IJ p Uc4 ; 0%'4; LAA4 0 a; 4 0 V9$

C: 044 9- en 0 w m f"

0P. m to0 00

0 4J0 0-4>0>

444 - nq %CO0 - OWC nrI C -

-A mUl O 0 LnN NC4 ''1n oo

r:>aC o-Ww% OC k- 0I 0 0 :414I

0'0' to4 0140 r- 0)Vr0 4)11 4)

0 w.XK

00-1$ 0 -1. 411'I>

dP L 4. c;4u

70

A

0 r

'-4

V-4

A0 0

r-4 In M N- 4r- 4N r

-- 4 r-4

to 40mmt-r0 0-

I'. r- enI

N N (c) r40

to0) 0 $4o4 1' 011V 4 M W MC N 4' a 40'. VI r- 4 (I c r4

0

'-4400

to V

00

41 u -IV 0

-04 $0 0m r4 4f

00 IA 4 0 'a.4) 40 p4 U

4).4E 0 1q$4 U x $. mUE

g0 0 01441 C

iSE gl 9 4.) C

.... .....

71

00 0%im Ln v M -4 .- I -4 g-4 m%

4J4) V .)

0 0H0kto 0% 4e- in N)r 0 10$

W -4 mnr-4

V @10.645 0 ".4

r.J HHNr- 4 0% IId- M P4 0 : 0 4 - ; 4 V W 0 W f-

W 410 00 0 0 000.

i~ vi M m - 0% -4 0qr0% ai Q.u 44)IA gad % % Wr. n H -4 r4 -I 4 M 4a 9-4

4) CV . C C ;- ;C ;C ;4 0 $4U) r4

> ~ ~ ~ ~~~~0 wSe-I r- nW Vm a

0~ $4 4 0

4-4 > 0-H I O -jV S C

72

A

.r4

U 1-

P-4H

4.) 4Cto

0

0 0

0 0to) r,4 0

0o 0f 9 4

oq toH o uf0 0 01

g2 09 >0A.0

0; m' u P-4 a

of 0 a

-1 0' 0N. v 0 ea -

H IV

STUDY AREA 5

Introduction

Study Area 5 was situated on the floodplain ofRichland Creek in south-central Navarro County west ofthe Trinity River. More exactly, it was located southof the junction of the Chicago, Burlington, Rock Islandand Pacific Railroad and Richland Creek at an elevationof about 295 feet above sea level. Field data were col-lected in the spring of 1973.

The immediate sites had a flat topography intersec-ted by several smaller creeks and drainages. Geological-ly, the area was composed of Alluvium deposits of Recentorigin within the Quaternary Period. Trinity Clay com-prised the soil of the study area. The soil, because ofits frequent flooding, is poorly suited for dwellings orintensive recreational use. It is well suited for pondreservoir areas, and has fair suitability for wildlife,woodland and pasture or range (U. S. Department ofAgriculture, unpublished data).

I The study sites are forested whereas surrounding,more elevated areas have been cleared for pasture.Cattle grazed within the study area.

Land Use

Navarro County had a 1970 population of 31,150,down from the 1960 population of 34,423 (Texas Almanac, I1971). Over half of the county's populatTlon 1 - T_inhabitants) lived in Corsicana, the largest town andthe county seat. Some 4500 more people lived in smallertowns of less than 1,000 inhabitants. The economy ofthe county is based chiefly on agribusiness, industry,and oil. Of the county's $82,430,000 total income,$14,500,000 was farm income. Eighty percent of this wasderived from beef cattle and poultry, while grain sor-ghums, cotton and hay were the leading crops.

Only about 6% (39,865 acres) of the county's total695,488 acres were classified as non-commerical (Table39) (Navarro County Conservation Needs Committee, 1967).Between 1958 and 1967 about 10,000 acres changed fromcommercial to the non-commercial classification, chieflydue to the acquisition of about 8500 acres by the Federalgovernment. In this same period, there was an approxi-mately 42% (over 225,000 acres) decline in croplandacreage. Forestland area in this period declined from

73

do

74 1

14

0 E

r- D 0 t Q O CU q r h- D r4m4 0

-W qV % 4'OW % & ~D D%o fl cmrU inC-4

f.. 1- IfOCVW Ch ~ r~ V 0 ;P O, 41N%(% (n) Ln 0% r4C Nr" 41 0

w% fnJE to 41

r-4 4)

4) D k r- ~0 r- o 0 % D r4 C4 O,'0r..14 ot% % . % . % r--

r-4 m' P.4f- 0% fnV -OD * EU Nt0 eq N4 %D C4 4 r-I '- V

0 V n 4 o $4

0 0

m 4) EU4-'4 0'

*) 4)

9.4 0 r4.

V -r4 f4) 0

o EU 00 "

EU~C 0) wUJE

00 0 4

Id oUd 0 0 4

ro 41 0 0' 0 r

4)0 :3UE 0 £Vut 04 EU A

r .4 :3 w $4 10 4)r4 44"VE 0rEE 13 1~ ~ Id0 .a

EU k0 4U 0U 4J(D 0 9).0 )4m 4r- 4 4 fa40 0

01~4 to u~ to 0 v>U EU~ I -A $4 $4 JW

0 V r.0 $ 4 4 -)44)

to 0VI a X to Va $I ..>.- $4 .40-AV E44

to . Idr. r,4 a . o V-~4 V 4go )00 D.O (V 14 -A)

EU WUEE 04 4) 44r6 1-)rE)9 >V5 4

m mEI 4 bO 41EU V%04 m U4

00 $4 :E-4 -4 t 0 1

75

over 110,000 acres to less than 39,000, a drop of about71,400 acres or almost 65%. At the same time, theclassification "other land" increased by 1200 acres from2,620 to 3,816 acres. Pasture, however, made strikinggains, increasing from a relatively small acreage of27,199 acres in 1958 to 314,671 acres in 1967, an increaseof about 287,500 acres or approximately 1157%. Rangelandacreage also increased from 8,565 acres in 1958 to 27,989by 1967, up some 19,400 acres or about 325%. In 1967,pasture and rangeland together made up about 49% of NavarroCounty's total land area.

An appraisal of potential for outdoor recreationaldevelopments (Anonymous, 1967e) concluded that NavarroCounty offers moderate attractions to recreation seekers.An asset is the county's location within an hour's driveof both Dallas and Waco. Unfavorable factors include ahot summer climate, the relatively small area of woodlandand wildlife habitat, and the heavy clay soils whichmake offpavement access almost impossible after heavyrains.

Due to the presence of a number of reservoirs andflood control impoundments, fishing headed the list ofpotential recreational pursuits with a high medium rating.Medium potential was seen for vacation cabins and home-sites, camping grounds, picnicking and field sports,standard and par-3 golf courses, small game hunting,scenic and historic areas, vacation farms, and water sportsareas.

Navarro County cannot offer the quality of recrea-tion that draws visitors to Polk, San Jacinto, and Libertycounties along the lower Trinity River. According tolocal residents, however, Dallasites are buying land forvacation homes in Navarro County and land prices have ri-sen noticeably as a result.


Three study sites comprised Study Area 5. The moreundisturbed plant communities representing the woodyvegetation of the area were selected for analysis. Po-sitions of transects are presented in Figure 12. A totalof 700 plots (5 meters square) were analyzed, 300 inCommunity 18 and 200 each in Communities 19 and 20.

76

mAA

CC

-a 0

~01

Ile

40

001A 41 I W

Ix4

77


All three study sites were located on a flat flood-plain subject to occasional overflow. Moving water 1to 2 feet deep covered the entire Study Area when samplingwas begun but receeded within 4 or 5 days. Flooding iscontrolled to an extent by the Navarro Mills Reservoiron upper Richland Creek. Selective cutting of large trees,mainly bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa), for barrel stavesabout 25 or 30 years ago represents the latest loggingoperation.

Community 18 was located west of the railroad tracksand south of Richland Creek (Fig.12). Water stands inoccasional depressions following flooding. Community 19was characterized by the presence of a shallow swamp aswell as somewhat better drained areas with an occasionalwet depression. This community was located across asmall creek south of Community 18 (Fig. 12). Community20 was east of the railroad tracks opposite Community 19(Fig. 12). It had water standing in depressions and wastransected by an intermittant creek.

ResultsCommunity 18

Only eleven woody plant species were recorded atCommunity 18. This forest contained a preponderance ofTexas sugarberry (Celtis laevigata) associated with occa-sional trees of cedar elm Ulmus crassifolia) (Table 40).Green ash (Fraxinus pensylvanica) and swamp privet(Forestiera acuminata) were mostly confined to wet loca-tions. ProbTy as a result of flooding and grazing,the forest showed comparatively little regeneration withmost species having fewer trees in the 1-10 cm size class(Table 41). Only occasional trees of cedar elm, greenash and bur oak had diameters at breast height greaterthan 40 cm. The shrub layer was generally lacking,allowing for a good growth of herbaceous plants. Groundcover was mostly wild rye (Elymus spp.) and wild onion'Allium spp.).

Community 19

At Community 19, Texas sugarberry was still by farthe dominant species (Table 42). Cedar elm was onlyoccasionally observed. Green ash and swamp privet werecommon in the wetter areas. Only nine woody species wererecorded at Community 19. Wild rye and wild onion wereprevalent as a result of an open understory. The forest

.... ... ..... r r. m ' W 4 h m , h. .... ..... .

78

5.4 P-14

0> 00 m aI

4.)>

0 0- %0 N CA

0

-4 4)

r 4 Hd

0 4 0

go4) 0.

4D)c "r r-40 0 0 0 H-vr r -f

0d 00 r_ 0- nr-I A4))

0 >1

10 00 r4

.40 $44.4. r4 4

a- m~ r'4l4 OO 0 o

Ho 004r C a4

w HN0; r- w 00 t o4

to to 0 to FA0 4

*d. 0

00 0 4. 4Et

r-t ID

1 40

79

A

a

0

.A%0

0 H

0 r- 4

.A H

N

0I

0- C4 r- P4 4

020

0 90H

to A0 ow f

N to 0 N :D r .'-H1 I4

M Nd 14 r4uF-4 *-4 14 W m

vi 0 3to0

Giq H IA w -

.4. N x -A V $4I 4 $4 H a d 4

8 0 H 4 H49N H4m u -

80

4)00) > ~ O'~ 0co E

4.) H10

.) 4 ) d0 IV0 0- - arIm00C

0 r-4 5H 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0

0) 0H

0)0

-4 *4-) ci q 4 n nr400WN 0V -r-4 * * 0 . . . . . 0)

4.) go md9 G 0'~0 -4 1-400Oa 0 >

0A H1 0

00

0 >1

V >>

dP~ . . . . . . * r

F.40 tn T-4 40

0 CJ54 H

10 . 0 .>1 d oD w c4w~n 4 c41--

4J w04 --4 H

>1 ~,~'~neJ0 $4

go II go ( tr. to LI4 :4) e

to* >0140w

tyt 0 V, 01I rr4> 0 0d :3 041t>)4 to 4' to1.42Ca~g *u4~ 0 H)0

04r-1 *$40 4 )

(d FAI.0 U) tO 0 0

H4 la *'Q a444 -A r01q H 541 1 fUO4I

4) $4

[$IXIV 4j r

was composed mostly of medium-sized trees in the 11-20and 21-30 cm size classes (Table 43). Tree density waslow as indicated by the presence of only 2.4 trees perplot.

Community 20

Community 20 was somewhat more open than Communities18 and 19. Only 1.16 trees were recorded per plot (Table44). Twelve woody species were recorded in this studysite. Texas sugarberry was the dominant species but lessstrongly so than in the other two sites. Cedar elm andgreen ash were relatively more abundant (Table 44). Wildrye and wild onion comprised most of the ground cover.Most trees present were of medium size (Table 45).

i.

0 i

014

m 0

'41

I) OD N v-Ii)

Nu

0 N en IVH-

4)0

w I to 0

Ia 0 04-0

>0 5

o Id 0~f r. r-

IIn

,4 r4 0 4GV :3 ' . 4

HN$1$4 f .0

14 "4 4' is0

61

83

1004J~ > -O -0I

"41 * .

0 0

00 0- 4%

> r4 V4

-1 40 ..

4J 4d m r.r-4 w en V 4 4 0 0 5.4

0j 094 M P 4 0- >1 M'-A -4~

410.U)d 0a 014 .94 9

0 04

01 1 0 4)

(d w.4. . 0 . . . . .

V) 0U0d C)r 0 0D% 00

0 )4 40 .

> $44

r-4 1.4 &ne U - )% 4 00 ., 0

to qv fn m r - m * *0 A -4 Q -* 0 04)r- eq 0000000 Ch

0) 4) 4

0 41044)r4

>14 0'CJ- 0% r-4 0

0o 411

to4) 0 4)

> 004) r-4 Vto 0 mto,0 Idnu4)u$ 41 4

$4 0 rM949-4

4) 10 054 A $ r- .. 4

.94 0 :, O ila) W1 4

0 .1 4 4)041. X441

A)4 410

E-4.

~.94 41 54

84

OD0co

NA

00

w I-

0 0 - -

C) $

1 N -4Cr-4

M -0 UN 4I 94( 14NU

0 -40)I r-4

0 10e

ur .4 r4 0

vi 0

to rli4N'

0 0-

(A 0

>) 0 i 44

U) Id 0 1- tto .4 f1:

I- led f

0 a 0o

ca4 to.N01 .El

STUDY AREA 6A

Introduction

Study Area 6A consisted of a tract of forest about7500 acres in size known as "The Hardwood Forest". Thisforest was located in Anderson County north of the junctionof Highways 79 and 84 and the Trinity River in the vicinityof Big Lake. Field analyses were done during the springof 1974.

The area displayed a rather flat topography withoccasional sloughs and depressions. Geologically it iscomposed of Alluvium deposits of Recent origin within theQuaternary Period.

Soils in the vicinity of Study Area 6A consist pri-marily of Trinity Clay and Kaufman Clay. These soils arealluvial, frequently flooded, slowly permeable, poorlydrained and have a fine, sticky texture and a high shrink-swell potential. The major difference is that sedimentsfrom which the Trinity Clay is formed were derived fromcalcareous parent material, while the Kaufman Clay is ofnoncalcareous origin. Both of these soils are fertile andproduce excellent yields, but frequent flooding makes usefor cropland too uncertain to be feasible (Meade, 1970).Due to the flood hazard and the properties of these soils,they are also unsuitable for dwellings, septic tanks, localroads, and intensive recreational use. They are wellsuited for wildlife and have fair suitability for woodlandand pasture.

Land Use

Anderson County witnessed a slight decrease in pop-ulation between 1960 and 1970, declining from 28,162residents to 27,789 (Texas Almanac, 1971). However, thepopulation increased to an estimated 29,100 by 1972 (TexasAlmanac, 1973). The county's largest source of incomeminerals, chiefly petroleum, salt and lignite, which con-tributed $44,908,000 of the 1972 total income of $69,305,000.Farm income amounted to only about $8.8 million annually,80% from livestock and the remainder from such crops asgrains and peanuts. Other income is derived chiefly frommanufacturing, agribusiness and tourism.

Less than 5% (32,588 acres) of Anderson County's686,272 acres of total area were classified as noncommercialin 1967 (Table 46) (Anderson County Conservation NeedsCommittee, 1967). This is up 10,000 acres from 1958,mainly as a result of the increased urban and built-up area.

85

_______________________

.. . . ..- . . . oU-- I B 1

86

44404'

1% U)

-4

4-)(.4 4OO ODO Ho0a 0( -

%0 c4 c4 tin IDCD Nr I u P 4-)00% S -S5 -- = 0

r-H4D 0~.' 4m.(~ o%D 41cc N I D CD H D tfl

$4>0 -'4

> ) fn C> M)GoN0 .Cr. ~ ODHWr4CD0 o% %D~O0% to

H IA C NWU r-c nr4t- C4 C4a (nWo% . . . . % .S1

m) H ; ID en N0 ) O DM OD q N' %D m%D 0% $4

%) D ID H4 C)

10 0as 41

040

6)) $ 0so 4 L)toId

M 0V

0 1 4-) 4) M

41 toHO $4 04

0 0 $4fd0 4 4) O'%-.

V 9 r-4 0 to w V " i

r.0 04 1H o 400 ) O-40 d) $4

0 $ $4 F -4 4 14 so6

O 4) $4 44to C: V VI _0 9 r f0 )t 044to4 k ) I.4

04 I $4 $4~ 9: we s

OGOr. 10 V ur,4~ 9V 0 H4

ID0 0014

0 0 .14E-4 1-43

87

In the 20 years following 1940, cotton acreage inthe county dropped from 43,534 acres to less than 3,000acres (Anderson-Houston Soil and Water Conservation District,1965 ). Row farming remained an important land use, how-ever, and in 1958 cropland acreage still stood at 95,798acres. This figure declined to 64,260 acres by 1967(Anderson County Conservation Needs Committee, 1967).Although this amounted to a decrease of about 1/3, thetrend away from row farming was not nearly so dramatic asthat experienced by nearby Henderson, Navarro and Leoncounties in the same period.

Anderson County also differed from these neighboringcounties in having over 56% (389,500 acres) of its area inforests in 1967. Especially notable was the comparativelyminute decrease of only about 5,000 acres from the 1958total of 394,907 acres.

Pastureland in Anderson County did not exhibit theremarkable increase in acreage experienced by most othercounties along the Trinity River. Anderson County had160,262 acres of pasture plus 280 acres of range in 1958,substantially more than Henderson, Navarro or Leon counties.This total increased moderately by about 23,000 acres, orroughly 15%, to 183,196 acres of pasture (but no range) by1967. During this same period, Henderson County's pasture-land increased almost 154%, Navarro County's approximately1157%, and Leon County's over 300%.

The catagory "other land" almost doubled from 8,890acres in 1958 to 16,773 acres in 1967. This reflectsgrowing usage of non-urban land for non-farm residences,weekend homes, lakehouses, etc. Percentagewise, thisland use category was the most rapidly changing in AndersonCounty, which exhibited a much more stable pattern of landuse than was found in most other East Texas counties.


Five study sites were selected in Study Area 6A(Communities 21, 22,23, 24 and 25). The location of thesecommunities and the position of study transects therein,is presented in Figure 13. A total of 974 plots wereanalyzed in Study Area 6A with 277 analyzed in Comuunity 21,123 in Community 22, 230 in Community 23, 190 in Community24 and 154 in Community 25.


Community 21 was located west of the northern partof Big Lake (Fig. 13). The topography was flat and the

. .. - i .. . . . L I Ill II

88

Os LAKE

-N-

II

C-22

C-221

C-25,/

(C-21, C-22, C-23, C-24 and C-25) and position

of study transects (solid lines).

89

soil type was a Kaufman Clay. Transects were positioned inCedar Lake Slough and represented Community 22 (Fig. 13).Water was intermittant and, as a result, plots were locatedonly in wet portions of the slough. The soil~of the sloughwas Trinity Clay. Community 23 was situated west of BigLake near Cedar Lake Slough (Fig. 13). This study sitewas flat and contained a Kaufman Clay soil. Communities 24and 25 were located just south of Big Lake (Fig. 13).Sloughs and depressions were more frequent and the communities,therefore, were more hydric. The soils of Community 24 wereprobably both Trinity Clay and Kaufman Clay whereas Community25 contained Kaufman Clay. The forest is grazed by livestockand has been selectively cut in the past.

Results

Community 21

Community 21 was a two-layered community with cedarelm (Ulmus crassifolia), Texas sugarherry (Celtis laevigata)and wlITw oak (Quercus Phellos) comprising the uppercanopy and hawthorn (Cr us spp.) and deciduous holly(Ilex decidua) the subcanopy (Table 47). It was a fairlyopen community with only an average of about 2 plants perplot recorded. There were 17 species reported in Community21 and representatives were all generally small in size(dbh less than 40 cm) (Table 48).

Community 22

The slough vegetation in Community 22 was composedprimarily of swamp privet (Forestiera acuminata) and waterlocust (Gleditsia aquatica) (Table 49). Green ash (Fraxinuspensylvanica), common buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis),cedar elm and overcup oak (Quercus lyrata) were also some-what prevalent. Only 13 specles were recorded in thiscommunity but the density was fairly good (7.76 plants perplot). There were a few large trees present but most haddbh less than 40 cm (Table 50).

Community 23

Community 23 consisted chiefly of ceiar elm in asso-ciation with Texas sugarberry, deciduous holly and hawthorn(Table 51). The community was generally open with only anaverage of 3 trees or shrubs per plot. The upper canopywas comprised mostly of cedar elm and Texas sugarberry;whereas the subcanopy was dominated by deciduous holly andhawthorn. Nineteen species were recorded in Community 23and most had dbh less than 40 cm (Table 52).

I

AD-A097 467 STEPHEN F AUSTIN STATE UNIV NACOGOOCHES TX F/6 6/3VEGETAT IVE ANALYSIS OF THE FLOOKPLAIN OF THE TRINITY RIVER. TEX--ETC U)SEP 74 E S NIXON, R L WILLETT DACW6 3-74-C-0030

A EUNCLASSI F ED NLI

Hi,_o = =1LU

11111 '' L.. 0

1111 1.25 111 .4 .6

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHARTNA110NAL RJAMW Of SIANDARDS 190 A

90

04) > r4t-'e en n00to

H 14

0 VO N H -r. dP wr 0-C 0C D4 d4of *4 0

H 0ri '.0 H

CA 4) 0 r. 0

0d M "O.D 4r -IC - aa4). 4) >4.454

00 04 Z

5.4 o4-) w4-A0f 0J 0 A 5

4- .4Jl '.r-'.- O40 0 H1C

4)40 4)$ dt

0 I

4) ~d NHAN .- 4O(~J 0 4) 5

4J) -r4 0 A -rrNH 0 $4 0

* 4)5 C41 4 4r ; )

E1 4)$ I

r. V4 0

54 0 5404) Q4. Oa

43,

'14- 4) 0 5

u~ 44)o0r

04 to 0>0r-4 4J r-0 mra54

4) 00d0g oH0 51u06

fA 0 4) w)5050 * .I10 0 9 4 04 JI

to M w fd r- r4 fdfOW 40 - W )"

HLy &00 m dmI 100x

0 )6 1 M - 1i

91

A

0

cc

0

N

4.1

to Ln

4 )0 40

go4 Ul Iw % 40 1 r L

0 r4

.41 *d 0 n 4c0 U~ ~~Or-4 ~r-44

to) 0 a0l m N NL .

41 %0 N H- 0 DH- o-

144 I (7%~ asF4 H- Ln0 HV ~1 4

0'44

.0 0- 4J

w)

0A

H 0 0 44

N 0 f 00 ler 0 W4

Cfl 1 I4 d 0 4 g 0 14 -V) '0 4)to 0 inIfI

14 U 0U) 0 0

a) ii"41X 1 410) 0 1

H-I14 6 IIF8 00 0

92

4>

0 to00OMC4Nr

0> ~ m nc 0w -4 - rI 4C),*4 0

0 4 dP ;o ~ e L4 c-4( OO c; ; F-4IdHo- ene. P4H r-Ir-4 0 to 04~ 0 U- >

~) 0

-04 14 %o 0n% w 4L -c 1 0 43

0 m dp 0I ON0'-I0H0N 0 0

C) 4) U0CJ >I 0 E

to .. 4 .14r4 41.

>1 H 0)

a M r- O w ~ ~ ~ D $.I 1.4 C 00 ) I'4-4 .1 0 . *~

) 0 0d 0

4) )

o> f-O nO 0N 0 V AF

.A r-4 .40-S 4) 14 w

0 1% 4 > *to rI 14 01

.14 1.4A

V. .14 0 4):r 0 5 141

04) to4) *4-A

~001f 0 r-4

141 00IH.4p0 00 04 Id 41 *1-4 f

w'0 14j4j 04 I0 Utrk U ) .5 0 4HK drz4.CV 0 Se0 1400

00 A FA5 04*14 -P4 FA0 01.4

0 146 I 0Lto 04a 4 Ij E4 U)

93

A

co

94

-

Nu 0

N

>1 19N-

1 .4-4 r-

C-4

@144W) .9.4 W0- VC r -

4o 1 N %no '.4

w. C44,0% FI rqI

0) O D4 4

to '.4

0 41

r4 >

004 ld.P4

Di 14 a'.4 .4N~W'.4N('~-4NN~ 0

14. I WN4 O a . f

o ,4 4INc 41

94

0 M C)i WM - -.r Ole.1

0> o nO M 0 W,. w- 0

P4t A wC 0 fc00 OF. ~ t~ - P-4 0>

>1 0)-A 00 U)I W*-NU 0 DV000 (N 0 4 r

go0d ;AL @~~L 0~ O a; c;c c 4 '

01 4)4d WOU tN'400W h -44

014 0

14 >1' 0 4) do 4

44.r .,4 o to

t % 1 1 c4) 4- 1iuic : 0 00000COOO O0 *4.

01 4)i- 0W r(~-M'0 - 4 U~

> *w oeomoooc o fI*4 0% 54 n - c 0 01'44) 00 0p co CD0 Nc4 a $ :

IV0Nr4v- 40 l 4 v4)4 r-4 rIO

04 0,. ' r. 4 'A

0t- C'HH 0 In m %V04m) 4

:3 HO) A c4 r r 4I

V I-. to0fr,4 r'O $4 "4 .~

V0 $4 "4.* * * 11 0 44F34 54 4 1w

4) 04.4 1,4 lo

0* 4) 0 0

9 '14 0.- 001

04 4 0 )a*u4 04 04 0UM @I" H i IcUOUW4 .14 '0.4

5044 0. 44 m 000 V4-I 00a

"4 A) P4r44

r40 U4 5 g

.14 '~ L4r4 F4 0

95

0 m into

to0

4,) %

0r r4

qw U4., n r-

0 0

'0 0) A

rJ ..- 4

O- OD H Hn 1.-4 r4 nqvOo4 f"G Hr0 00

(N 014 144

O0 0 0-

~~~~o in - 4 ~ t

0t H g V

6 0 0

H r~0-4 H*u0 1 a 0

0E-4 E-4

96

Community 24

Community 24 had a more even mixture of dominantspecies than the other communities in Study Area 6A.Cedar elm, overcup oak, green ash and American elm (Ulmusamericana) were frequent upper canopy species whereasdeciduous holly, roughleaf dogwood (Cornus Drummondii) andhawthorn were principal subcanopy species (Table 53). Atotal of 23 species were recorded and the community had agood overall size class distribution (Table 54). Thecommunity was fairly open with only 4 plants per plotrecorded.

Community 25

Trees were less dense (1.84 trees and shrubs perplot) and smaller in Community 25 when compared to Community24 (Tables 55 and 56). Green ash was the dominant speciesin association with overcup oak, cedar elm and Texassugarberry (Table 55). Swamp privet, deciduous holly andwater hickory were also prevalent. Fifteen species wererecorded in Community 25.

I

.II

d

97

00

EU0 toD 4~ v

o 0 0 1 09 0

u~~~1 -r IXo0 0. *iaN(o0N01 0 ;C

4) 04

Hr- 4* 1r') vI0 to

H 03

0. %DCM cw~ wm0$ o V

.94 91: 9405IrI r- -40t

H 4) r-44 > "q 0

4.) am Ad0

0i *: 00 00 00 0 ~4) HA

4) 0 la 0 A-C40U V - - M%0rIO NW(0f1ofo44

04 00 P,. W-4 I$4IdS ~0000000cH V r.94.9u

4j 0 0 toH 0 0V

I4 0

r-4 H NH r- U- )r

0- 4)r 4 1

$U 0U*9.94 4 409 $4

514 4j -I.1 H : U

0 to

0140 0q $4 0*.rl $4 "

dI

43 4. mw--

98

A

NN en( n

rI-

41 rrH H

1 fnH

0~

N Ln f- 4 M 0-

wU 0Hn II %0~ (4 N N -4 at v

r- IVH

0 N4' .. 4 0 4L nNwommwv r

0U 12 4 e.4 r ( .4

o IA

U) 0 .0-0 o4-A 44 R(L rH amO( -4M 04

0 IM1 01404 -dr

4 0 9: E

IL~r- 11LHD 4 NN~ 4 0

1.4 IV0H - Ll M N O O%~ A. r

99

41w C

S~H M 04

. . .4

0 4J 9: dP chr iL - 0& 0 H

Hl 0 %HH0 @H )

@11

-A 4 Q (A0O0HA O4'4O 0 , 0

4.) -A .H . H * V 41

0 f @1 ooO n l ;C 4 H S .404 - - , - -'4)

0. 0

444 V-. r4HH-t'mN -4 H00 q CD -

00 x.

>1 w1 4'. m UwC %W -

lHH H: 0Hd O H 04

@15 r-4 0- - 4A04

9' -4'to

o1 0

:3dP c4 f A 4 4 11 4 IA H4

(4 r-4 0- r- 94,4 "~~r-4

C4 0) 541 @

0 0 $ 0

H4 H

4 0 * 4-iI5 I4w0 00 41 Ol- U-.

ratu .44 -~IrlfkdV 0 65 H0 00 aw$4 UA > V W 0 P4 0

IdaN$

100

O0

C>'OA0

.4~

N H

>1 ~ -

4.)

r-4 HH N

to or- U)f c n0

0 r4

M C)

co r- H

040

N) c0 1.4nwC

r.r 4 ~ ro. ~ 'D A0

c4 aNar Hnc - 4q

44 0HLA tn e' H r-4 00 0

H 0

04 -4

r4.4

0 0 M4

9~ U)L

.A C.) 0 E)M 5to 4'r otor 04

0 fd I l

i)0 Ho .r

*vI *rH U U) cc 0)1 Hai 0

Ho C.) 04 00

to~~~- wr -3r4 0 -

STUDY AREA 6B

Introduction

Study Area 6B is situated in Anderson County in thebig bend of the Trinity River immpdiately below the junc-tion of the river with Highways 79 and 84. It is alsowithin the Long Lake Oil Field. Land use informationfor Anderson County was presented in Study Area 6A andtherefore will not be repeated in this section. Fieldanalyses were accomplished during the early summer of1974.

The topography of the immediate study sites wasgenerally flat with occasional sloughs and depressions.Geologically the area is composed of Alluvium depositsof Recent origin within the Quaternary Period. The soilswere either Trinity Clay or Kaufman Clay and have beendescribed in Study Area 6A.


There were 4 study communities (Communities 26, 2',28 and 29) in Study Area 6B. The location of these commu-nities and the position of study transects therein, ispresented in Figure 14. A total of 718 plots were analyzedin Study Area 6B with 200 plots analyzed in Community 26,206 in Community 27, 154 in Community 28 and 158 in Com-munity 29.


Community 26 was located southwest of Long Lake andwest of McCracken Lake (Fig. 14). The topography wasflat and the soil type was Kaufman Clay. Community 27bordered the Trinity River south of the above mentionedlakes. Although the topography was generally flat, thatnear the river was gently rolling. The soil type wasTrinity Clay. Communities 28 and 29 were situated tothe east of McCracken Lake a short distance from theriver (Fig. 14). It appeared that all of the sites havebeen selectively logged in the past and most were pres-ently grazed by livestock.

Results

Community 26

Only part of Community 26 was presently grazed bylivestock. The ungrazed forest had a more dense woodyunderstory and herbaceous layer than did the grazed forest.

101

102

-N-

C-26 - SCALE-I" 20 "

tAKE C-2 C-29

--.2

. "c .. o

S% I p.

GL - I.

Fig. 14. Location of Communities 26, 27, 28 and 29

(C-26, C-27, C-28,and C-29) and position ofstudy transects (solid lines).

II

... . . ... . . ..... . .4

Overall, Texas sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), cedar elm(Ulmus crassifolia), willow oak (Quercus Phellos), greenash-TFraxinus pensylvanica) and Amiiican elm (Ulmusamericana) dominated the overstory whereas deciduous holly(Ilex-decidua) and roughleaf dogwood (Cornus Drummondii)were understory dominants (Table 57). There was anaverage of about 7 plants per plot representing a totalof 22 species. There were a few large trees present butmost had dbh less than 40 cm (Table 58).

Community 27

Shrubby species were abundant in Community 27 withdeciduous holly dominating the community and forestiera(Forestiera ligustrina), roughleaf dogwood and hawthorn(Crataegus spp.) also prevalent (Table 59). Principaltree species were Texas sugarberry, cedar elm, white ash(Fraxinus americana) and post oak (Quercus stellata)(Uhe-reis the possibility that post oak may be bottomlandpost oak (Q. similis) as a result of the bottomlandhabitat). There were 23 species recorded in Community 27averaging about 7 plants per plot. Most species had dbhless than 40 cm (Table 60).

Community 28

Community 28 was mostly comprised of small trees ofgreen ash, Texas sugarberry and cedar elm (Tables 61 and 62).Although deciduous holly was somewhat prevalent, theunderstory was generally open. Fifteen species wererecorded in Community 28 and they averaged about 6 plantsper plot.

Community 29

Texas sugarberry was the dominant species in Community29 (Table 63). Small thickets of deciduous holly androughleaf dogwood were also common. Cedar elm was quiteprevalent along with bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa), redmulberry (Morus rubra) and hawtForn. As a result of thedeciduous S-W an--roughleaf dogwood thickets, shruband tree density was slightly higher than in the othercommunities of this study area, averaging a little over8 plants per plot. With one exception, tree dbh were allless than 40 cm (Table 64). There was a total of 14 speciesrecorded in Community 29.

0 i J

n o -d ,. , . .

104

M inr 0 M 4 -4 o - a(

4)4 001 ~ c4 9 9 -4 4 0

-4-0

4) > 0~

(d > $4 fV~L~N. C-.41 0- ):,,

FAC' 4) 0 r.0)a

.r4 9

4)4

- 4J r4LOr nW -N 0 $4 M

4-) r4 eqc 0 V .I4U0)Pd4 >~40 0 qtU

to ,-4 -44N00 -r.

r- 4j

00I i

0 4)& c L -4 M -W r- %D0 V-

%14 (n% C- a 0 (nOI(). V00

V: .j .40

0 U.-4 0 0

-A.......r $4 1.4. d r wenco-r- r- enN r- - 04 )

-4 r4 r- w m. Id) '54

54) $4 00 -. 4004-V~~ m'4

1 0 4)

M3 on L 0aL r c d0

44 0) A. aI$44

$0 Vn 11 C:f

u $0 $41 ~..C:~~~ -40 .4:t

IV -1 go 0 $4 001'.I4d 4 >* r.4 V 0 :s

41 1, 1CmP4I )Ar :C0 0 HO >14 za04 AA

1057A

0D

OD

0 m L0

r-4

41 N

00

r- (1 r-4 r- -

4 - -

'-04

o1 o IN - r4

0- 0

9-44

oVol41 e4 04

0 ~ N I -4 (A '. tD 14

oo "44 1 0

-s-I -4 Fa a -4 N@3 N oo0r. 034t

"q 0eYa 44c~ r4 s- r4 toU). N4r4r

0 13

In 1 :3 IN .4 oe . 4 1

-,44

P4 10P- mPuko, $00410

106

.41 :3. . .0 o no N qr- -1 ai c

'-4j

41

> 4r4 UL - (9--4 0 %0~

o*-4 Id -r

I4t 4 4NV-4 -4 r-4 0 id :3 w

44 0 aL

4) > >1 E 5160 00fl -4 e nwaa- 4* wO en 04 1 . IU

Ecmd P.,4.- . .0 .0W145

4.1 m4 e-4 -4 0% 043 0 C:

IV 910-4 .0 -

4 go1

4.4 >944 4) -r $ 0

0. 00 EU4 0 )M 0. M0N

00

>11.1~4 %4 r.

rv. 1.4 r- *4 .1..#4 C)q d)r4

0 0 $ 4) wj 0

0. -A0.0r4

10 4)1f3 110

4.)44 . -9.143 14.4 $1

.94 FA~

C: -940 '1A 014 $4

4J 5-f U 40 91 -f -g o A 4 1 :4 c j -40146 11 A 0 I1144WV

Ln m ) 0 t 0 Ilow P 41.0

107

A

0

co

N 0- -

C.)

0 U) In

.A L

00r I

C1 NN - L

04 C) r- NIA,4 ri co

1 Go N 4.)r4 -4

r44

0 ., in C%(% -4 H- C4 41rI 0

00

41.0 0q

30 4'Id0pr

0

r4.

U) I H

10 too4X

Mw H 00, OI

108

$.4 r4 L,4o% %~" a;0a%4c a ;c00g 0% w N r4 r4 4 r-4 0%

W5 0>0O 0 oN4%0 qw O 00 4 N

U -r40 . . . . . . . .

r4Jd 0 O0irud %*i0'

uO -40 logof

U) 4 -.4V~ 0

C r-4 >9~.0" RIO -4

4 45

0 4.) v-I 0Vr nC %~0 -W r (%a LA N OIk4. 4 ~ %V0%%Qr-4 444OO~ r- 0 0

41 00 0

>1 41

a1 :3 op .94 :4 4.

R 4) $4% 1 %~~N4f 00

0 04 0

ro -A Eu

41 -A 0 9

45 0 094.04 5.4 >1i '01*f3

(A U 04j.I4

N* 0 i WI

U $4 ml 14

> to1. >0"0 0 4goQW:$4 (a 0 a18ll U4

> t o 0 $ 0 a L

r4 ?A 140 W" 9 4 g(A :3 0 F ln

04 04 *'IA :04~ ~.0 - -4 0M4.. 0 -40

a$ 0 .

0) E-4

109

0

OD

0 0

I J

Id 0

4) 4

4-)

UU0H

4. U' en Go-4 %1,4 U 4 I -

'U 0

U I H

UW) 0

N1 t 0 4 oo %

4$)

04 04$

U)o V4 EON ICis il

110

EUO~~ Dr~,r- Ln ONr. -4

0Oa O - n" - - r-4 0

go>enL r D 0-We f O NCh

'-4a

00 r.

> z4J %

C)- -A4 VU*fo m P c4 .4,-4 c4q c 4 4

Rl 0 0 0 6 -f$

0 "4. 04dJ1b

01

fd 4.r4 04 4 0 04.) 0 0 0

1 "42

0~~4 43.- On~t0 0U44-4 % 0 :3

-H 00 Id E

*0 > 110 -,4.e

EU0 (%4p-in q -w 4 04P4v- --4

k0 I

10

14 '110

>0 to I000A

El~ ~ P- 4 '

rf re'S 'Se

Ar

0OA

%0

91 t

4) r

A..1 0

0 4)

fn N 0(0NNo n %.r4 1) N

r-4N) *d

4)"4C4 q) w~ %D4 O'I 4t Go s- m-4 eq % e

Uj I L 4r40

04 0

0) el 'W J f '0 04

04 .90

40

'44t : OO014 LA 4 5r4M to 0-4' 0r0

$4-

> W4 0

10 a 0

'-41

P44 0 0

*~1 -44 L Iim, j

11.1

STUDY AREA 7

Introduction

Study Area 7 was located in southeastern LeonCounty just west and north of the junction of LowerKeechi Creek and the Trinity River (Fig. 15). Studysites were situated within the floodplain of the TrinityRiver, on the adjacent slope to upland, and on the morelevel upland. Collection of data was accomplished duringthe spring of 1973.

Topographically, the study sites varied from nearlyflat, poorly drained floodplain to the more elevatedslope and ridge areas. Geologically, the area is com-posed of Alluvium deposits of Recent origin within theQuaternary Period. Included perhaps are some Deweyvilledeposits as well as a few small inliers of Tertiary for-mations. Fluviatile terrace deposits of Pleistoceneorigin within the Quaternary Period were also present.

In the vicinity of the junction of Lower KeechiCreek and the Trinity River, the major soil types arethe Tuscumbia, Travis and Bienville loamy fine sand.Probably the most extensive soil is the Tuscumbia, whichis similar to Kaufman Clay. This soil occupies nearlylevel, slightly concave bottomland flood plains. Thissomewhat slowly drained soil is poorly suited for dwellings,sewage systems, local roads, most recreational uses, andcropland. It is well suited for woodland and wetlandwildlife and for pond reservoir areas and is fairly wellsuited for grassland and woodland (U. S. Department ofAgriculture, unpublished data).

The Travis soil occupies the slope area between thelow, poorly drained Tuscumbia soil adjoining the creekand the more elevated and level Bienville loamy fine sandsoil. The degree of slope (5-12%) hinders the utilityof this soil for some uses.

The Bienville loamy fine sand soil occupies the mostelevated portions of the study area, occurring on thebroad, nearly level to gently sloping crests west of LowerKeechi Creek. This soil is somewhat excessively drainedas a result of a low moisture holding capacity and isseasonally droughty during the summer and fall 3nths.It is well suited for dwellings, septic tank filter beds,local roads and streets, and light industry. It has fairsuitability for camp and picnic areas, playgrounds, mostwildlife and woodland. Although the Bienville loamy fine

112

-a , - I i - , -

113

-waiiiiiE z

01 C

0 IAu~ 0

0

0 4

-P :

I-)k

114

sand soil was classified as poorly suited for cropland andgrassland, some parts have been cleared for pasture inthe vicinity of the study area.

The three study sites were forested, but some nearbyland has been cleared for pasture. Grazing by cattle ofthe entire area was evident.

Land Use

The number of inhabitants of sparsely populated LeonCounty dropped from 9,951 in 1960 to 8,738 in 1970 (TexasAlmanac, 1971). Buffalo, the largest town in the county,had a-population of 1,242 in 1970 while Centerville, thecounty seat, had 831. In 1970 less than 3400 peoplelived in towns in Leon County. The economy is based onagriculture. Of the $16,724,000 total income, $10,000,000was farm income, while minerals, chiefly oil and gas,contributed $4,645,000. Eighty percent of the agricul-tural income is derived from livestock. Cotton, grain,melons and peas are the main crops.

Of the more than 693,000 acres of land in Leon County,less than 12,000 acres were classified as non-commericalin 1970 (Table 65) (Leon County Conservation NeedsCommittee, 1970). Between 1958 and 1967, non-commercialarea increased from 9,865 acres to 11,556. Most of theincrease was in the urban and built-up category, repre-senting fringe growth of the small towns and an influxof people, mainly from Houston, into recreation areas.

Of the county's total area, over 48% was in pastureand range in 1970. Between 1958 and 1967, pasturelandacreage increased from 99,177 acres to 320,100 acreswhile range jumped from 4,115 to 17,075 acres. Most ofthe gain was at the expense of cropland, which fell from150,593 to 61,292 acres, and of forest, which droppedfrom 434,363 acres in 1958 to 292,800 acres in 1967.The classification "other land" dropped almost 50%, from5,208 acres to 2,189 acres. With the county's loss ofpopulation and the trend away from intensive row croppingand toward cattle raising, the number of farmsteads hasapparently declined.

Leon County can be expected-to see future developmentof certain areas for outdoor recreation. An appraisal ofpotential for outdoor recreational development in LeonCounty (Anonymous, 1967d) predicts a high potential forpicnicking and field sports, transient camping, fishing,deer hunting, riding stables, and shooting preserves.

Asld [

115

r 0 f V-44L H0 f.-N

CD r-I N~ (%

41

co N4 N -W %D u a% r- 4 %o0

fo n- en ~0ODr40 m 4 a%,w inVi~o 0% cr m

V s-I~ ~H% M0%r Si

El 0~-U -

>l

4)0 m

>1 V 0

V3 00 9 o

'-4 0 0i 1 0o4 r

>1 W r4 4 k

r. 0 El 'H

V0 0 0

904 to0 0- 3t0 $4 C: go 0 L

0Elgo -4 1 k Vro .0 r. El

.. ... 0 04 0 .- 00 &

0- rj 0 " k 0

0 05Erl E-4G

116

Vacation cabins and homesites, as well as water sportsareas, received a high medium rating. Perhaps due tothe lack of proximity to large reservoirs for fishing andboating, weekend home building has not yet experiencedthe boom as witnessed in Polk, San Jacinto and Libertycounties along the lower Trinity River.

Ilethods and Procedures

Study Area 7 was comprised of three study sites(Fig. 15). The more undisturbed plant communities wereselected to represent the woody vegetation of the area.Transects were positioned as shown in Figure 15. Atotal of 800 plots (five meters square) were analyzed,300 each at Communities 30 and 31 and 200 at Community 32.


Community 30 was located on a slope and level ridgewest of Lower Keechi Creek and north of its junction withthe Trinity River (Fig. 15). Transects were locatedalong contours on the ridge and one-third and two-thirdsof the way down the slope. The area was well drainedand supported a greater habitat diversity than the othertwo study sites. Community 31 was in a cedar elm flatwest of Lower Keechi Creek and north of the Trinity River(Fig. 15). The site was poorly drained and showedevidence of flooding. Several permanently ponded orexcessively moist areas were present. Community 31 wascomposed of a more rolling topography traversed byseveral drainings and an intermittant creek. It waslocated adjacent to the river west of Lower Keechi Creek(Fig. 15).

Results

Community 30

The forest at Community 30 had a more varied habitatthan the other two sites at Study Area 7 and, with 34woody species recorded, the greatest diversity of species.American beautyberry (Callicarpa americana) dominated theunderstory shrubs on bo slpe and ridge areas. Alongthe ridge, post oak (Quercus stellata) and black hickory(Carya texana) were dominant tree species while farkle-berry (Vacinium arboreum), Indian cherry (Rhamnuscaroliniana), sweet 4Lq-4uuid ambar Styraciflua) andflowering ogwood (Cornus florida) were less aundantwoody species. Post oak was still dominant on the upperportion of the slope. Abundant associated species wereblack walnut (Juglans nigra) and sweetgum. Black hickory

..... bh~~Jb ~

- - r -

117

was less frequent. Two-thirds of the way down the slope,eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis)f winged elm (Ulmusalata), black walnut, sweetgum and red oak (Quercus falcata)occurred with nearly equal abundance.

Table 66 is a summary of the woody vegetationaldata gathered at Community 30. Overall, Americanbeautyberry was the dominant understory species and postoak the dominant overstory species (Table 6G). Blackhickory, sweetgum and black walnut were also prevalent.Most individuals were less than 40 cm in diameter atbreast height (Table 67). Only two recorded trees ofpost oak and one of sweetgum exceeded 50 cm in diameter.

Community 31

Community 31 was strongly dominated by cedar elm(Ulmus crassifolia) in the overstory and by deciduousholly (Ilex decidua) in the understory (Table 68). Muchless abundant were willow oak (Quercus Phellos), honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos), hawthorn (Crataegus spp.)and Texas sugarberry (Celtis laevigata). Permanentlyponded or excessively wet areas were dominated by swampprivet (Forestiera acuminata), overcup oak (Quercus lyrata),green ash (Fraxinus pensylvanica), and water locust(Gleditsia aquatica). Except for thickets of swampprivet in portions of the wet areas, the forest was open.Sedges (Carex spp.) comprised much of the herbaceouslayer. Mo-st trees at Community 31 were less than 40 cmin dbh (Table 69). There were, however, a few widelyscattered individuals of cedar elm, willow oak and overcupoak with larger diameters. Seventeen woody species wererecorded at Community 31.

Community 32

Fourteen woody species were recorded at Community 32,with Texas sugarberry, cedar elm and pecan (Car aillinoinensis) being the principal species (Tble 70).Deciduous holly and swamp privet were the dominantunderstory species. Swamp privet, green ash and waterlocust dominated the occasional wet areas. The forestwas generally open except along the river where green-briar (Smilax spp.) and blackberry (Rubus spp.) formeddense clumps. Most trees had dbh less-t an 50 cm (Table71). Only 1.87 trees per plot were recorded.

I.

118

Ul-0

Iva40la 00

:0 0 w 4

4~~-' if4 03 1.4 L d " to44 )

-Jd*4 r430V1.4r 4 14

) E 1 0.1- 1.

*) () UO -O OOOOO$41 t

UJ o 03t vU

0 r.d r -$0:ca-1g w0 0 $4 -

)0 to 3 4.141 .

(D4a v r. 4)0 0 to -4if 03l.1 4 13 U

> 0 o 3 -

-, . nc nv - 1 ra4 *4j to 4

4. - 4 L 03.toM M U9L 49C C 0 0r jt

4-) -)o0 0 > to r- 1.63f3 ul 0

to* 1% 0 -) f d .4 10 4r-I fOd _IOI4)> 13404 r- tl .4 go V Ol U

4.) 4) a1.4 :3 - a

03 )

31 46 - O

I4> 0k 04 4 rIo4 40-

0n T1 r- - nNr 0VN0P1a 0 00 4J0-4 04 4 4 4 - (1 ( C4 4r M 0%HIg

0.~4 1.550 E-4 I --a >1 a 0S.t -44

1.4 13 4.4 1 11)w4J 0 dP r niUnsM40r .4533C4 '4 to>f

0- it t-1. en N1 0 a 0 1 0 zI

119

A

0

-4

-44

(4) CD A

U) Inr -

0 40-4 Ir

0 0OD 0D Ln V -4~ -W4.

o- N- I O

41C40 W0 wNI ~ 0 14)9D A' -441 04Ln

go r- FA I0- '-4

m) 0

r- 44 i

0-4 -1

FA --44) r-4

U) 0

-4-4-

0 to 00 V

141 II

120

-4

o 01..0

00 -4- -4 E 4 -4 0> a)4

-4-

0 0 1.0 C)-4-

4) 0r 4

-4 C U 0-4

) 4-4-

m M p 0 4 "I41 r--4 04 a r-0

r_ 4) > -4 0 1 0 el 4 )>

j r-4

-44 -4E)4~ 0 d -A-,

k4 -4. 0n -- 4'-'0

It C * ( ;C oo 00 00 0 .-4 C 4C

m) M0 a0 010

0 0 ..41 4 -4O~~~- 44 o0 00 U0-4[U

u >-4 a r4 -1C*Nm. ' 0C 0a ' -4 C:

00 04

>1 ) W $4 Z0 0 - > 0.- (a

C Com ~ ' I -4 U I

4) 0 2C: >i *.4.401 r f -I4Q) 4). -j - 4:304 w 4 dE

4J M C: -4-4 -4.4#

44 U) - I

04) 41 -4 -n 0- .$~IC*-4: C) > 0

GJCc 0) C C m 0 P

04 4-4 40O-u) 014 0 00to0

ea. U* -4 >m-4 >4 0.. 0 :1 -40Aua-44 0 00*40 4)0 m - 1 a>1 ed$d4J 4- Jl

$0 40 ~4 -44-V4 r:1t at

'0 4)wM $ 0)Uu >4w 10 0 .

co $4- U) U-4 :3 0 M -4 4t $$00"Q) "a:3 4j 4 0 4) U2 -40-

0okddku~a. r4rl:3F4140:4 E' V 0 4

U) =,)I co u u cocm io -.

121.

A

.4

'-4400

0 N 1

1 M

41*

4' U40 0o q4 t. tn C4 C)N4 04 0% 4

O- N 4

44 r-4 -- r- Smn m

0, r- 4 4.NIN-4.P4 0% 4P- C4 0

o to

0

r-4 41 c

o 9:' .V4 %O1"E 'N O.4 44I -4I' w NI u- I% 4

0J N 4 0 0

0 14 0 P

'-44

Li0 0 0e

-#44 a.4 a 00

6i if4'm s 04 0 0JA 4

0 &4 51E- 6 08

122

43 1 . . .4 g0 IdW.MM4r

41 0 0

-A) Id. . . o . .3

4 -Ar4 4 -IDt

41 CIl% % % 0

4) >r 0 d am

ad- I 4-j'( ,-C Dfnr 4 C-40 r-4 0

41~~~- 9: mr4 C -

to 4a -A 0V.4 -.4 O 't

$4 -. 44 0 $4 -46- 00) 41 -- V- tr Nm- o nq 4* o-

id %D-I-I- 0~ 01 mQ4000Q0 ) Vr

4) 0CD0 I 0 C; ;C 0 0 $4 44

0 4

-04 . . .r*) 01 VA-)

o4- :3dn4 Din r- 0.4w O-4 v fn r4 P 0 004 W 'a O

,4 r4 00 0 0 0 0 '-I V 4We

F.w))0 '4 >-00

'so4 4

An 0 %Ln Ln .n ,-I0l0 U 0 co0

4.0 C; 0 0 r U1 1

>10 U9-I 4

U, 14 01144

0 $44) :3

'ri 0 -14 u

41 :-oI 9I N IO 4)

a) 001 44 -0 >9-.4 014w at

>) r10 I4 : gto -A 41

C;$4 s a4 $4 01.

0 W 0 0 fa004)r. - ) 04.4 aW 14-

4 .144 -'1 A$l q ~

140 41 to)2LA 0 04I4)*

123

0%A

-4 ko

0 r.4a Hn

4)

go I

0 w fn .- 4 4 MH4

4$).4 n 0% o-4~ w V h 4

U 1 N4) r-4D) V N

41 N N-C nw fi - q C*6.4 to1E)~ ~H 0

04 $4U

0 co44 N 0 NN

0 H U0

'4

.0 0-A)

U) 0 0 003 1 U) I4) 6a.I

#a 0 0o40.r4

M

4) 'a -0 0

t~U) 1-4

U)0 0 US $4 4

H 04 0

STUDY AREA B

Introduction

The objective of this phase of the study was toanalyze the woody vegetation of 3 swamps and associatedterrestrial forests located in the vicinity of the TrinityRiver. Field work was accomplished during the fall of1972. The study area was situated within San JacintoCounty in southeast Texas. More specifically, it is lo-cated in the extreme eastern part of San Jacinto Countybetween Shepherd, Texas, and the Trinity River (Fig. 16).

The topography of the area is flat to very gentlyrolling and occasionally characterized by the presenceof depressions, sloughs and creeks. Geologically thearea is composed of Alluvium deposits of Recent originwithin the Quaternary Period. There are many small in-liers of Tirtiary formations and along minor streams out-croppings of Deweyville and Pleistocene formations occur.The Deweyville Formation lies along the western edge ofthe study area. There are three soils present, Tuckermanloam, Bernaldo fine sandy loam and Kaufman clay (U. S.Department of Agriculture, unpublished data). TheTuckerman soils occupy nearly level concave areas andare generally poorly drained and ponded. They are poorlysuited for dwellings, general recreation use, croplandor grassland but are suited for pond reservoir areas andwoodland and wetland wildlife. The Bernaldo fine sandyloam soils occupy well-drained, slightly sloping sitesadjacent to Tuckerman soils in our study area. They aresuited for dwellings, woodland, grassland, cropland andwildlife. The Kaufman clay soils occupy the somewhatpoorly drained bottomland floodplain areas. They areslightly better drained than the Tuckerman soils but aresuited primarily for pond reservoir areas and woodlandand wetland wildlife. They have some potential forgrassland.

The vegetation of the study area was mostly woodlandoccupying both aquatic and terrestrial sites. Clearedsites within the study area were generally associatedwith roads and pipelines but more upland surrounding areascontain larger acreages of pasture and cropland. Grazingby cattle was evident and it appeared that all of thestudy area had been logged. Some swamp areas have notbeen logged since the early 1920's but other areas havebeen selectively logged within recent years.

124

d--------------

125

, I - - z - II

, Iq

I -

4

' i~r a " .4l

MCI

4

[ '-.

--. .

Al 4 '>

THE5

Aj

126

Land Use

San Jacinto County is mainly a rural area, with lessthan 1900 people living in the two largest towns in thecounty. Most of the land is forested (Table 72). Outof 399,360 acres, some 258,100 acres were in commercialforest in 1967, with an additional 58,592 acres of Na-tional Forest within the county. Between 1958 and 1967,cropland acreage declined by over 75%, while forest areadeclined about 10%. Pastureland acreage increased sixtimes over, however, from 10,625 acres to 67,117 acres(Conservation Needs Committee, 1967).

Within easy driving distance of Houston and thecoastal population concentrations, bordering Lake Livings-ton, and containing part of Sam Houston National Forest,San Jacinto County can expect to be increasingly affectedby demands for outdoor recreation. An appraisal of po-tential for outdoor recreational developments in SanJacinto County (Miller, et al., 1967) indicated that wa-ter sports and fishing, vacation cabins, cottages andhomesites, small and big game hunting, and campgroundsfor transient camping and vacation sites have especiallyhigh potential for development.

The area of land used for pasture will probablyslowly increase at the expense of cropland and forest.The major change will probably be in land developed forweekend and retirement homes. Polk and Liberty countiesare already experiencing such a boom.

Within the study area, only the Bernaldo fine sandyloam soil, making up about a fourth of the total area,favors diversion of the land from forest to grassland,cropland or housing developments. It is probably inev-itable that suitable land of this type near the riverwill eventually be developed for weekend and retirementhomes as has already been done in Polk County on theopposite bank. Large scale development might includealmost all of this well-drained soil. The Kaufman clayand Tuckerman loam soils, however, do not lend themselvesto uses more intense than timber, grazing and wildlife.The current practice of grazing cattle beneath the forestduring drier periods will likely remain the chief use ofmost of the area in the near future.


Eight study communities composed the study area(Figs. 17 and 18). The more unique and undisturbed plant

dt

127

o N'Oe a wc 0 Mr- DODr. '0 0% w %0 o% Inr406(c

-4W~~-E m Uf 4M nc 00W.-40% in fn %0 L0n

o C4 a%0 -0v- t ACn U00 %D Y war OD ~00 N%0,-4

N- %0 co E~ rn44m n%0 V.-1w' 0% %n %.0 cnm 94 a

.441

-2

0

'4 :r

41 0 10r 0.,4~4 z' o 44

AjJ 0 -A04 4)0 0 .1.) 0 k raU> 040 U4 toItot

$4 0 z4)' a)00~ 0- $44~

-0 P ~ 4.Q' tous Mu 0 o )4 '44

o :1 V 4J 4) 4P5~0 0 C:t 4

0 614. 4 0 I4 4 tH f)

0 Id -4 1 5Vun.0 0

*Q) 14a F.J 0O u

0 0544.=

go 13 41

iE4 .0 U N N 0

0U

128

'All

4i t'ol 1 1U

-A -z - i 06

I, *

i .4n

if If441 -- 4(,4444 qU

~~1i0

4V4~~~~' 1 f-44444411 4, 1 , 4 Int U

44 4

"4j.o

0c'J.. 4 =

014

0

t4

129

C) 0

or 00

0 00VV

I- S

0-4

go Oo

44It4 441 44 4

4i4 444* 4

- -~ - 44(4

4'(4 14 4 i

4t4

communities were selected for analysis. Transects werepositioned within each community as indicated in Figures17 and 18. Plots in swamp areas were established withthe use of twine strands transecting the swamp and markedat five meter intervals. A total of 2274 plots (fivemeters square) were analyzed. Three hundred plots wereanalyzed in each community with the exception of Commu-nities 33 (104 plots), 36 (550 plots), 37 (320 plots) and39 (100 plots).


Community 33 was a black willow (Salix nigra) com-munity located on the bank of the Trinity River in PolkCounty just south of the Lake Livingston Dam. It wasnot positioned in Figures 17 or 18 but is easily locatedas a result of its being the first forest below the dam.Communities 34 and 35 were terrestrial although portionsof these communities may be temporarily inundated. Theywere located east of The Break (Fig. 17). Communities36, 37 and 39 were swamps with Communities 36 and 37referred to locally as The Break and Smith Break respec-tively (Figs. 17 and 18). Water prevails year-round inthese swamps and they are located on Tuckerman loam soils.Water depth was generally less than 4 feet. Communities38 and 40 were terrestrial communities associated withSmith Break and Brushy Lake respectively (Fig. 18). Com-munity 34 was located on Kaufman clay and Bernaldo finesandy loam soils. Community 35 probably transected all3 soil types mentioned. Community 38 was situated onKaufman clay soil and Community 40 on Tuckerman soil.

Results

Community 33

Sand bars along the Trinity River are often dominatedby black willow. Therefore, a black willow community wasincluded. The community analyzed was comprised of youngwillow trees associated mainly with young cottonwoods(Populus deltoides) (Table 73). All of the trees recordedhad dbh less than 20 cm (Table 74). Only five shrub andtree species were recorded in Community 33 but represent-atives were densely associated, having an average of over13 plants per plot.

Community 34

A forested area east of The Break with a rather uni-form population of palmetto (Sabal minor) was analyzed

I III . . .. .. . - . .... " I ~ -" '

131

.4 4 t1%4AO 0 1 C00( r- r4 C0m > N eE

4)4) C P 0

0 ~ ~ 4 0 ~ ,4 ~ 0

0. -. 40 43- N* - -

0). -,10

04@@4J

0) .lAr W 4Mr4 -

-4) 0% 0- @3C a 0 L

00

04

5.4 > 0 @30 4) $4 ~ -" .

0 Ix t44 ~ o >

0 P>1 41

@330 d'-I ..- @3 . . .-4

001 >1- 0 ' t

E) @35.4 @4

V -'4

Vr 0 'aw0 0

0 rV 0) IV r-4 9 .H1 = 0 41

.44 @3) Saw X-- 4 4.4

0) 4

@3. V-41 4)

I.4 0 0-U) V) r044J m Ol E1 1

V@3 > X

~~IM

13~

A

C)4

0

0

".4 U)

-A 0

0 r-0@3-4

N- r-4

'-P4

r4 N Ne -4r4 G44 -e. m0r0 U)i N

o ' r4

04r

4)4 "1N

9.P4 0. r4

0 0-.0

'-V404 a

o3 .- N 4 Nu 4 X I '

4 JV14 4.9.w4 l

0ro E-4

133

(Fig. 17). The palmettos had a frequency of 81.7% and adensity of 4.76 plants per plot. This species, as a re-sult, dominated the shrub layer of vegetation in thiscommunity. Dominant upper-layer species were water oak(Quercus nigra), sweetgum (Liquidambar Styraciflua) andsouthern red oak (Quercus falcata) (Table 75). Thesespecies were generally represented in the higher sizeclasses (Table 76). Texas sugarberry (Celtis laevigata)and pecan (Carya illinoinensis) were also prevalent.Mid-layer subdominants included deciduous holly (Ilexdecidua) and snowdrop-tree (Halesia diptera). Thirty-eight woody species were recorded in plots in this area.It should be noted that a honey locust (Gleditsiatriacanthos) tree measuring 78 inches in circumferenceand 88 feet in height and having a crown spread of 57feet is a possible state champion. Its index is 180 ascompared to the present state champion's index of 147-1/2.

Community 35

Community 35 was a fairly open community dominatedby hawthorn (Crataegus spp.) and cedar elm (Ulmuscrassifolia) Table 77). Cedar elm trees were Iess than40 cm in dbh and hawthorn trees were, with two exceptions,entirely within the 1-10 cm size class (Table 78). Willowoak (Quercus Phellos), Texas sugarberry, black oak(Quercus velutina) and overcup oak (Quercus lyrata) treeswere prevalent and representatives ofth~ese species werethe only ones with diameters greater than 40 cm. Therewere 27 species of trees and shrubs recorded at thissite with an average of 4.0 plants per plot.

Community 36

The Break is a swamp maintained by two creeks flowingincessently through its length. Big Creek, entering fromthe north, and Coley Creek, entering from the southwest,unite within The Break (Fig. 16). Based on importancevalue, tupelo (Nyss aquatica) was the overwhelminglydominant tree species in the swamp (Table 79). Baldcypress (Taxodium distichum) was somewhat prevalent. Bothof these species showed good size-class distribution (Table80). Subdominants in The Break were Carolina ash (Fraxinuscaroliniana) and red maple (Acer rubrum). Sweet-spire(Itea virginica) was the most'aundant shrub. These latterthree species contained representatives mostly in the sizeclass 1-10 cm (Table 80).

Community 37

The water in Smith Break was more stagnant than thatin The Break. Smith Break was not transected by a creek I

. . .. . .. al

134

0 0 C

it 4) 0 % , w(? r.of 0 n.4"3

$4 -4 C; 0;0 ;9 ;V

0 > o 0 ., 1

140.

-.- oa . - . 1t-M r4 ow PC

r.4 rz r-4 4 I

(D0 . 10 ,.,> 4 t.I

-. jMNL M14- rI0M 0 w0 V.4X1

0 .4j-4 . . .- 04 U '-,1 1

0 00 00 00 0 (4L -LnWL wwmw 0 0%

go' 00 v 9Id 0 >1v4*4-4

0L 0 x9

411IVI

.r r-4 4) V-

>1 4-P I ilV v w.

0 ~ r 0 m I 1

>1 r- 4q -4 r-4i'r-4-4 r- - I 11 fo4 4 :3~q4I

44~o 0-.40

03 0 j

04 0 1i

go> 0?

110 4 -r4 -4

$40 a I -4 0." goe v 4>0 #00 0V 4 r5 0 v 4

4 r-4 0> 0 4)451 r4 0 r-4450 04 1" 10 0 4 4

~ .0 *40 .41 g14I,03 $0 4 0j 4)& 5d

45 r.4 015 ' 0 $4

cn H u 41 1 o H

135

0 r-4

4). to $4 X~

4

U) 4 r-9I

) 4

0 t

140 -04

04r.1-

U)

2:0 GO.4 c4

a - 0fo ~V$

WIG) 4) r

136

1-4

r 4 N - -4 Ln

to 0

-4 -4 C -4C

0 N'41 -- 4 04-4

go -W c 6c4 % 4VII'o4

4 (naU 0

0 n C - f l N N t %-4 1 r- II q

U -46) N

e44

0o 0

-4 61

rI

I 4 -4 q

'r' 1 0% -o

-4-

0q 0 9

.0

43-r

$44

*e 0 A

137

04~~s. > 41)04

-4- E 6) IWO 2. 2 0

0 (D $4 0, H 4 OA 11-4Wi

0-4 lf C4 r 41 r40 o0

4) 00W

0 4.)

0 -.4 to 4 1.4 0)10 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C M LC 1mC %P1 4 -41 *

fni r-11 A4.1- >~0-4~ a 0VC)

Ile~~ C4 - - U 1 0041 0000400x 01

00 meg

.4 0 * 62 4J'10 4' -4 N C 4 C~N4 0 mM AW4SV r4 0' 1 se r4 0

In0 . .... 0i 0eS r.OHaa0 0 W" " N41 0 M4.Iwo 0

> 0 0u

to * *M*-4 r4*o- *c s~~o I

E I $ 0 W *-i 1 0

so"4 0

:3 d9 MUnO - 0MetrInM N V-*( r44 1 I4

.r4 $4 4 41j r.r

H a

U) i~ H0 No *(aI

1106 W) 06 H

Ild 4)

138

A

0

.4-

.Aa

ef% 0r4 n I0 N NO

A 0M- qv %0 J ('4 w' t-Men I

o1 r4 Ir-4I

* N

N) -.4 0n V4P1r4r4I0 ~ ~ ~ ~ -ur** 'o -I% M q

V-4 0

to '

"1 10 Iv r.a IV-4U4

-A 4

0 14

.14 4)% N C 4 ro4 r ' ' 9-4 0

0

E- 94

LL)

V -4 go

.0 0 ~.4( -.% . * r-4 P 4J

"-4

) ** to ~I 4

>U % 0% P-4 C 4 r4Nt- -4 1-4 ) )J04 V )r4.4-m EU r-4V

0 Cdp -W a 0OOD 0,40 0 (a 44F-~ 4 > 0 > 00

4) 0 0 P~4 4

-,4 * u .4 l oC~~ V~ >> >1 4.4

to. EU -.4a . . . . fF4 :1 -W0 V- W* m ) 14 $4t a 4

o J4 o 1"" 4 P4

V43 .u0 00

>10 V 4 $40 4) Mn Do % P-4 cc In" % f 4 t

too 4 w n n o %D fq W - rr. 0 0 V~ - f 04m .0 o . 0-4 0 V 00 r.a 1OP4

to ga. C404 0aC> ;C ; 0 .9 0V (f) 0 o)

>1~- 43 C 4 0w0 0- 0 mwt 0 .. a0 14

.U .V . . . . 5:

9:to1 en Wr~~4 -4-4 10 0 .i wrx 41 $4 MV

xav09-4 wC C *O14V. V43~0 ~Io~:3 ~ ~ ' LP- - 0t , cAI w 10M

043 CDMfnC 4 - 11

rX4 0"-4

,a C: 1-44M~~ a )4 -00 c

rs. -r 04 s 4

""4 0 I m- > > o A 4 -#4.0 1 0 A 0 r4A 4) $ 40F-)" 4 A0 00 W0 0 J -A O 0towV0 1 V o

41 $4110

140

A

OD, O0- 0I r4

rn r0

I e n>1H

'0 0A L

goC D

0

00 r4 r.N

laE0 N0- 091qH Nn 44N

r-4 U4 r4fl

* N

41 .4 0 - 0or4r90 f4 4M N HtoH

El4 00* M H 1.-444 4

0) NI IN

to H 0 NM "q.

Id a 0

0) 0 41 n

$001 44 I00 , ly

OD 0"1 0 A 0

-r "4 0 4 4 00 0.4 fa 00 N4L"; x 1 o l

cf k 0 k f

El0) or mj 4 654j b4 0

141

but instead appeared to be spring fed with drainage intoBig Creek. A drainage ditch has also been excavatedfrom the east end of Smith Break to the Trinity River.Dominant woody species in Smith Break were tupelo andbald cypress (Table 81). Each of these species showedgood size class distribution (Table 82). Subdominantsin this site were water elm (Planera aquatica) and com-mon buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis).

Both Smith Break and The Break were dominated bytupelo and bald cypress but subdominant species variedin the two sites (Tables 79 and 81). In the areas stud-ied, The Break had a greater species diversity as indi-cated by the larger number of species recorded (27 spe-cies as compared to 10 in Smith Break). The Break, inaddition, averaged 4.97 plants per plot whereas SmithBreak averaged 1.53.

Community 38

Community 38, located adjacent to Smith Break (Fig.18), contained a fairly open forest with little under-brush. Trees were generally scattered as indicated bythe presence of 1.95 individuals per plot. In addition,the study plots transected a slough as evidenced by theoccurrence of water hickory (Carya aquatica), waterlocust (Gleditsia aquatica), swamp privet (Forestieraacuminata) and water elm

Dominant trees in the area were cedar elm, willowoak, hawthorn and honey locust (Table 83). Trees ofovercup oak and Texas sugarberry were also prevalent.Willow oak, overcup oak and green ash were the onlyspecies with representatives having diameters greaterthan 50 cm (Table 84). There were 24 species recordedin plots at this site.

Community 39

Community 39 contained a preponderance of water elm(Table 85). The more abundant associated species werecommon buttonbush, water locust and swamp privet. Ninespecies were recorded in this swamp with an average oc-currence of a little over 9 shrubs or trees per plot.Most shrubs and trees had dbh less than 20 cm (Table 86).

Community 40

Of the communities studied, Community 40 is nearestthe Trinity River (Fig. 18). The topography was gener- Ially flat with an occasional slough. The area was fairly

I

142

de144 4 5 -M~ M Ewv 0 0

C) ~ ~ ~ - r, %n m *.

; .d r.4

> cc~mm c cn

-. 0 0 a . 4 *

04.' 92d 9O.40 crp-o a - a

t4

? >utoao V4cOV.40iNo.I= 0-

~4r4 44C 4-

0 P4'445

**44

451

g. c; I* v ; 4 .4c 4U*C

9.4

0

CAM

143

o EODcn -A

0Do n uL U

Go

0

.V4-

I n C4>1 -- 4 u-*8-34

r-4 enu-

wI 0

(i U iluI

0 N

U iluI

04 044 (V1 0 (N

41 inNNl r.' U

iv) I HH

EU u-If

0 P

ti)H

Uo U) EUW r

P-1 0 0)E-UH0atoLW89 E

1447

v U) -n0m MN r

14.-4 o0W~m~0~mr- 4J (d (

00 to W n -MN 4 r-4 C14 as d04 > N 0 .4

H 0u M

'1

to > ~ N r n r-4l M 4 0f000 , .94 . . A.) m

0 4) ~dP fnrf Nrqr 0 N V0DIr 0 4 e- 9 0 14emI 0.94 goJ go 0 0 0 1 0

) 00 P4

0a go (4.)r-

U)~~C u. to2 to.............

-9)4 >O VD Oto

4J -A .00 . . . . . .04

4 >i4 0- , m14 r

0 .4r4 ~LA 4 -4 4,)

P.4 44fl m0 '0 09l~0 414 00 0 0 D.14

03 4) I

>4 0 -41

0 .34 % .%oNO 0 ~ D 'C -L oO Ln 0- 0D0t

4-4 rf 4 M nQ P4a0 0 r4 0%$

a1 0 a 00a QC 0a jlk A

4) -9d O f 14 4

4)) -1 A C:

04 0 . . . . . . . . . . #a* 0 *i

4.) 0 dP w- -0tor4 9 4lr4 h .14 . -'4 - m

.r-lP-40 Ir-

F., 4) $4 4) 4 l

0~~ 44>00rqkl04) .9.''

to 4) o 4 i.94

140 0 4 0014 0 A4E

M 44

Ai .4 0041 14 M4

id 9 0 ma

r4 > r > w $

145

A

14 -4

OD

- oo

0 Vo -4 - 4

0-4

C) 4

P , ev~e LnC -rj% -4 M~ 040

-4 C

in m oN m rr4 04

o 0-41

0 to0

r4 f' 1~C) v(4r 4

n4 0

>- rI -44*P4 to0 P1"44

-4 '4 u a

"4 0er

oA '-4 >- 0 >41it4

04)

01'-U .41

04w 4E- 0

146

04) >O - f 0n

41-

> ~0% NO0r- ONL-H 10 . . . * . * * *s

M1 .V44 V "M M -4 N 4 at 0

(A 40) -r

4J 4 4r. 0

to4 1%io4

4 0

$4 >11

04 4 M n -%C 0 ' CJ 9-

to 4 . ,. ; TO:.. .

.0 0

-H4)44V .94 4 c; c

.r q4) V 4

0 94 0

0 P C HC~4H W, C r

.94 o5O.4 4 -41~ Z

-4)

04) .94-j 4 44

tr E 0 4)

L4) 04) >4 41

>40 .1 4 0

iv O01.0 F

4) .94 II@4jq6 0 0 C00 0 0 5) 1 C

E- 04U E-' Vl

147

A

0

-4

-

>1 --

0U

- I U

044

0) 0

4-) n I

fl

I4 %C-4-Ii

0. C4 (.q-w'r

to 4) ifl u-4

-41

0

00'I-Ellar I0 ~ 0fuI15 44,.

148

evenly dominated by hawthorn, southern red oak, cedarelm, water oak and honey locust (Table 87). Trees ofwinged-elm (Ulmus alata) and Texas sugarberry were alsooccasionally encountered. Trees were generally lessthan 50 cm in diameter (Table 88). Thirty species wererecorded at this site and there was an average of 2.62trees or shrubs per plot.

Combined Swamp Sites (Communities 36 and 37)

When data from The Break and Smith Break were com-bined, tupelo, bald cypress, Carolina ash and sweet-spire emerged as dominants (Table 89). Tupelo and baldcypress were by far the dominant species in both areas.In Smith Break, however, Carolina ash and sweet-spirewere lacking and water elm and common buttonbush replacedthese species as subdominants (Table 79 and 81). Therewas a total of 29 species recorded in both areas.

Combined Terrestrial Sites(Communities 34, 35, 38 and 40)

The overall dominant species within the land com-munities studied were hawthorn, cedar elm and honeylocust. Willow oak, deciduous holly, Texas sugarberry,water oak and southern red oak were also prevalent(Table 90). Cedar elm and hawthorn were among the topthree dominants in three of the study sites. Honeylocust, while not among the first three dominants onany site, was nevertheless a significant component ofall four plant communities (Tables 75, 77, 83 and 87).Fifty-two woody species were found in the terrestrialcommunities studied.

. . . .I I I I I I H i l _ I _ ll

d . . . . . . .. . . .- - - - -. . . . . . . . . .. . ., | - . . . . . m nue - - ' "

149

4j Uid%

NN44- $0 04of4

41 @w04U

) *.H id . . . . . . . u Id. .

0 V1 r. v w - %0 C ;:q10 -A C4 r4 C4 0a,

04 00r0

M IS 0 w

1- 4#4 0 :5 0 0

54.4~~~~4 -r40 if0i4(1 N"4 0 0 Qr4 0 a

"4 v4 v4 >40 "4

01 9- M QO W1W 1 4 w 4 V-0

.14 -44 14 0 4 %0 vr

to0 0 go 0 "40'0Nr.lC34 a 14 00 r

4Am 0 41P4r~

>1".4 -14"4.

0 a 4

r4 wIw 0 4

5--00 14 S

>1 (4 c4. r4r4*) 1

.r4 u

150

0

0

0

0%

"44

000 92

f" c

in 000

I4r-

0 en

%0 C 0r4r r4W C %5

0"4

r4 U) 0 %0 0%% q -fU- M r-4

r-4"4

W-1 0r 0- 4 a DL ,g

41 &n a% m~C in D N0 in

p-4 S- IL0 0

90

I ~ W.4C r-

00

"4 go a4

*0 -000

"40 a 40

cc 44 0 0

"4 0.0 r4.4 0

0 14

151

06 10 r- a 0 0%L m :) 1 :-0 1 On 0 c4 r- 4.-4 POu A1 r4 0 I Ln 4 -4 N .r4 M 0Y-

-4t m .4, . . . .I 1 0

ro0 0 ,-1r":"4)go0 i f

61 H I w14 o o.

.04 9:.

'o o) ** 0

4 >- 4 *,4

0 -A .V N nP4V0L -4WWr . on

44) - .'.. . * 000 0 004

4) d Ln. -4 cy% o %o %o44at 1

-4f 1 ON V4 t16 60 1) -A 4

14 (-a -4t %.4

16 1.4 4- . ;4 C; 41

0 -r4 if4) 1641 ~ 44

>16 0r4 D0 no .00 4 w00- ND 14 0 go Zr4 * * * . . . 401

.0-4 F-4000 0 0 0 ~ 46

01 .. . . 41

>1'6 LA~~ V~ .4 0 $416~~~4 -A 1* * .... a 14 >

0%qWODM P 0 L 4.-~ V 1411a6w 0 1 61d

4)~~~-- v-0.4 V SI.4614 14.u41

0 41VM 0 ) *PI4P4

-el V to *- C; I .4~~dPC 0 Llf %4'4 6 6

$41 Vn-.l- 4 4a)o-1

61'q 14 "4 .44

Cl'f . U A4)

) 44(a wlo r. 1614 ol4)1 -A to *e 0144

0 IVNO 0-.coSo 4 10 :s 140~V 1:> 4 c 014064

.040 .0 lid W4u-wI 0 4164 k 144

w M4 0.

152

ul aim

a4

$414

04)

4110

Il

IiS41

m0 Oro

-P40 0

041 x

r4 M

153

410 0 t

0 4) O4 -- CP 4L r-4 f@ 40i 00 .4. 1 3

w u-4 L -W 0O C; W; 0; 0U044d N N--1 4 -4 0% @400 k0j d

FA4 >- C4f

Of 41 ..u-I)i Ulu'w >0%0% -1M v0%w n id

44 6

544 -.4 0 ' 4 -

go, r. I" .o

M4 446 OONM@F-4N w @ 0

414 44 0N) "I r-I en M

Ira, "10 3* $4442

C0C ;C 90 W4 .1444

00 wo wo4>~~~~~~~~~ *qwM0M% 4r - - n0 0

*. O V w4 1el34

430 v V-4 r4 r-1 0- O

10 4,

0'4 C,4 C4 -4 4J 4

A3 0

.4 "4 *14u-4 A4 se4al

00 43, I 1

o $4

H Q 10 V 1 000 eo 4) 4 .4 I

CL%. -A or 44 f 4 0 0 'rf 0 - o

.. 54

x 4

04W 0 00

0 fe .9i . 414$44

04 A 0014

00r34 4J V -4

E-4 r4 0. .40 44 0O

.r Id

010

0

.r44

% 4M0 U~rO4~ 000 w A

4Q 7r r4 41

is to 0 04.

03

a'e-J 0 r4 .

0444

r ~ r id :01- _ _ _ _

STUDY AREA 9

Introduction

The objective of this phase of the study was tocharacterize the woody vegetation associated with theTanner Bayou and Capers Ridge areas (Fig. 19). Fieldwork was accomplished during the fall of 1972. The studyarea was situated within Liberty County in southeastTexas near the junction of State Highway 162 and theTrinity River. The study area was located on the westside of the river (Fig. 19).

Topographically, the study area is generally flat.Several lakes, swamps and sloughs were present, themost obvious of which were Gaylor Lake and Mud Lake.The area is drained by Tanner Bayou, Little Bayou andGaylor Creek. The river terrace extends from nearGaylor Lake southward to Capers Ridge where it projectseastward along Capers Ridge almost to the Trinity River.

Geologically, most of the study area is composedof Alluvium deposits of Recent origin. Marginal elevatedareas were part of the Deweyville Formation whereas out-crops of the Beaumont Formation comprised the crest ofCapers Ridge. The Deweyville Formation is of Recent orPleistocene origin while the Beaumont Formation is ofPleistocene origin. All deposits are within the QuaternaryPeriod.

Soil surveys were incomplete in regard to the studyarea and, as a result, some extrapolations have been made.Based on available information, there appeared to be fourmajor soil types present. These were Kaufman clay,Forestdale silt loam, Acadia silt loam and Tuckerman loam.The most extensive soil was the Kaufman clay. The Kaufmanclay soils occupy the somewhat poorly drained bottomlandfloodplain areas. They are suited primarily for pondreservoir areas and woodland and wetland wildlife (U. S.Department of Agriculture, unpublished data). They havesome potential for grassland. The Forestdale silt loamsoils were slightly elevated above and generally borderingthe Kaufman clay soils. Drainage is slow and pondingoccurs in depressions. They are poorly suited for dwellingsbut offer a fair potential for cropland and grassland.Woodland production is favorable. The most elevated sitesin the study area contained Acadia silt loam soils. TheAcadia soils are highly productive for woodland, suitedfor wildlife but exhibit only a fair potential for crop-land and pasture. They are poorly suited for dwellings.The Tuckerman soils occupy nearly level concave areas

L ,155

1561

lb.' *

~sG y LOR

4LAK

4z

MU

1.75MO.

-N-

TO FM..1006(.9 mi.)scL-52

Fig. 19. Showing the study area in relation to the TrinityRiver.3

157

and are generally poorly drained and ponded. They arepoorly suited for dwellings, general recreation use,cropland or grassland but are suited for pond reservoirareas and wetland wildlife.

The vegetation of the study area was mostly bottom-land hardwood forest. Bordering, higher elevated areassupported some pines and other upland species. Clearedareas were few and generally associated with roads andpipelines. Cattle grazed most of the area and pastlogging was evident.

Land Use

Liberty County had a population of 33,014 in 1970,about half of which resided in the county's four largesttowns (Texas Almanac, 1971). The economy is based onagribusnss, varied light industry, tourism, and employ-ment in the Houston metropolitan area. Oil, gas, sulfur,sand and gravel are produced within the county. Agricul-ture, based mainly on rice and cattle, contributes $15million annually to the economy. Sales of timber withinthe county total about $2 million annually.

With no National Forests or other reserved landwithin its boundaries, less than one-thirtieth of LibertyCounty's 756,480 acres was classified in 1967 as urbanand other non-commercial area (Table 91) (Liberty CountyConservation Needs Committee, 1970). Of the commercialland area, 60% is forested. Between 1958 and 1967, theacreage of forest within the county increased slightly,probably as a result of a change in the boundary withHarris County which increased the total land area ofLiberty County.

Of the approximately 270,000 acres devoted to agricul-ture about 54% is in cropland. In 1958, cropland acreagewas predicted to increase roughly 9,000 acres by 1975,but by 1967 had declined 20,000 acres (Liberty CountyConservation Needs Committee, 1958 and 1970). Pastureland,predicted to increase only 4,000 acres between 1958 and1975, had already jumped 15,000 acres by 1967. The class-iiication "other land", including building sites, lawns,barnyards, farm roads, etc., was expected to increase fromabout 1,200 acres in 1958 to slightly less than 1,800 acresin 1975. Land devoted to these uses, however, had increasedspectacularly to just under 8,100 acres by 1967.

While it will remain an important major land use,cropland acreage will likely continue to decrease in the

-I I

a 4

158 1.I

or

0n * D r- w. fn0r

-)

,-4 ' , -4' 4 %)

4J -,4 ,-4

4) CD %0% Ocnr nr

-,4 I @ @0 cO a % -- ,M %D 0O 0L n U n e f n N 4 N a , -4 G

o C> VJ "o C'- 1 a4

U-, C1 C1 0 4L02 I- LA

• 4 04

goo4Ja 4J .

0 '-404) 0

-@43)

@30 0

4U 0440 0

V 0-00 w'-@ 4-4

4 :~ 3 02 W0

1 402 d

., I0 0 • 0$4 r- H N @- 1.

o"I u

.- U. ... ,-I0 - - . J , l

0 )0

40 0 V4)@ 04 4

w E 0 E to 34 C')

@0 0H~ 0- toN o$

.0W @0o 0 *o4 o.r 44 4 $ 9 -4 ( U 0 4

to 4). to02 1

0, 000HI N

4) $40 F.0 0a4 4 M U) M 4 r4 )~r4 44

10 0

E-4 EI

159

near future. Marginal and fallow cropland will probablybe converted to improved pasture, a pattern common to allof East Texas. It appears that forests will decline,generally being converted to improved pasture and weekendhome sites.

Although the 8,074 acres devoted to "other land"uses in 1967 was hardly more than 1% of the county's area,its jump from only 1,183 acres in 1958 was unexpected,and the trend visibly continues. The boom in vacationand weekend home construction, with attendant roads andother facilities, accounts for most of the increase.Larger and more elaborate developments will continue todraw permanent residents willing to commute to jobs inHouston and Beaumont. The concentration of new housingdevelopments on the limited amount of land along theTrinity River and nearby oxbow lakes magnifies the impactbeyond that indicated by acreage figures alone.

Development has also begun in the Tanner Bayou-CapersRidge vicinity. Weekend houses have already been builton Gaylor Lake. A large, expensive development justacross Highway 162 is the fastest growing in LibertyCounty. Across the river from Capers Ridge is Knight'sForest, another large development. In addition, construc-tion has been started on a road which will eventuallyparallel and open for development a portion of the riverfront to the east of Gaylor Lake.

The county's appraisal of potential for outdoorrecreational development (Anonymous, 1966) rates itmedium-high ior vacation cabins, cottages, and homesites.It has high potential for picnic and field sport use, aswell as some appeal for campers. Despite poorly drainedsoils, terrain too flat for water impoundments, frequentrain and the abundance of mosquitoes, the heavily woodedscenery along the Trinity River within an hour's driveof Houston and Beaumont appeals to outdoor recreationseekers.


Seven study sites were selected within the TannerBayou and Capers Ridge areas (Figs. 20, 21 and 22).The more undisturbed plant communities were selectedrepresenting variable vegetative types present. Transectswere positioned within each study site as indicated inFigures 20, 21 and 22. A total of 1,700 plots (5 metersquare) were analyzed. Three hundred plots were analyzedin each study site with the exceptions of Community 46(100 plots) and Community 47 (100 plots).

. ... .•,6 -,,a. . . . . .. .. . ..

160

C1

CdC

00

UI 0

-r. 0.P

j =

>--

44

I 44

i 1.61.

Iv-

\\ 0

\\ -

.),

a)om

0 JU,

• 0°1-4

n 0

U -

11

IJ _ " ... . _ ll l [ I I H II

162 1

R*J r

00

10

'00

* MV

tn

r-et

II * 0

0i A)"4U

o * In

-,C4.-

163


Communities 41 and 42 were located near the junctionof Highway 162 and the Trinity River (Fig. 20). Thesesites were on Kaufman clay soils and were generally flat.Community 43 was situated north of a slough near the river(Fig. 20). The topography was flat to slightly rollingand the soils were Kaufman clay. Community 44 was locatedin a vegetational ecotone associated with a terrace areawest of Gaylor Lake (Fig. 21). Topography varied fromsteeply sloping ravines to generally flat conditions.Soils present included Forestdale silt loam, Acadia siltloam and Kaufman clay. Community 45 was a flat bottomlandat the north base of Capers Ridge (Fig. 22). This com-munity was probably situated on the Kaufman clay soil.Community 46 comprised transects in association with CapersRidge. One transect followed the ridge whereas the othertwo transects were on north- and south-facing slopesrespectively. The soils were probably Forestdale siltloam and Acadia silt loam. The ridge gently slopes froman elevation of 99 feet to an elevation of 35 feet.Community 47 was a swamp at the foot of the south slopeand was probably on the Tuckerman loam soil.

Results1 Community 41The predominant woody species at Community 41 based

on importance value, were Texas sugarberry CCeltislaevigata) and pecan (Car a illinoinensis) (fabe 92).Both were well distribute and displayed good size classdistribution (Table 93). Dogwood (Cornus racemosa),swamp privet (Forestiera acuminata), and water elm(Planera aquatica) were also prevalent. Stem size (dbh)for these species, however, was generally between 1 and20 cm. Larger trees of sweetgum (Liquidambar Styraciflua)and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) were frequentlyobserved (Tabl" 93). There were 27 species of woodyplants with dbh of 1 cm or greater recorded within thisstudy site.

Community 42

Cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia), Texas sugarberry andwater oak (Quercu-i-nTgra) were he principal woody speciesat Communityj4(able94). Other associated dominantspecies were winged-elm (Ulmus alata), deciduous holly(Ilex decidua) and bastard -- k "(j -rcus sinuata). Theforest at Community 42 was generally composed of treeswith dbh less than 40 cm (Table 95). Only occasionallywere larger trees observed and these were usually

I'I_

164 0---

S-A4

0 O~l 0r-r- eV-r4 14 4 CN x M..4

0 *4

r4 > UI4w05

> >1 t > 14-A0 - %r N N tOUn ri AIA0O c4 %o

(A V*r4 0 * * *w I 0R '

v H)~ C 0- H HV-1-4 Ou - 4f 0 0) 0 0

r4 0 00

4 )-r Jiiii$

0 1 -4 e N5 CD" O.14M 0%-I 0%i e 0 r- w

0>4 .,1 to w0~W-4 a" Li1, 10 1 0

4)~ 0ir

>g- 0% e & G r % C Nr-4- 0 a 0 0 r

4dp a;4U 0: 4 r4u 1c 4 kE-ea tI r 94V4@ 0 4 fe

14 >4'44 -> J

'01 = 01 . Dot 0 .igo $r4or Id u -H Ig

fn( 4%af 0 r- -4 a

140

14 140 0* k P40%~~~~~" VI p' rO S01'4 *~

41

to 0 .

1.4-4UC

1.4

0n 0W % Wm C

0 I-

to 0I. M- 04W- 0

41ODC r- -4 f* I

o "4 0-4 qa 0n

00

-4W'0 BA *I

ONO P44 0

0- w q r 'i o$0 o to r o4o4

29 0 I0$ 4a4*4 4J (0U r.4 N

o0 0 10fw '-4

BA A 1 1 0 44.) P4 W 4 .94 a a

r4 P4 14

-P4 r.4

P4414;$i .T

166 1(fl m r.

u~0~ =): -

4 1 $4 IIN0W;1;a clcf

00~~~~ P-44~.-.~O 0

> (nC Dq k - 0-4oC

V'.9-4 009r4e r-4 >

o ) $4 0

U * 41 ~r4 % - 4

> 0)d to r 1 Cr4C 4j c -4 0 00 >w enq O _ nW ) 0

FA4CA... 66 w 1 0N> MV 4W dP wp4 nWm nr-N nfn0 :

.. 4. 0 r4 R 0

0 r.. P-41

60 0v to15.0

C y 1 a Z 4600 03~ r.C%~1~IuU O ~ 6 4 $4.

(d w0 r-4 r-4 C1 0. '0 1 00

0 14 61 1 4to0.44e > 0C 9: $4

>1 4-) C X if:to$4 Ci do0. g $c: Cd9 r-mr3- -r-r- -oo 0 -4 $4 x0 g

061 d1 *. . *. . I m% % mr 0 V -4@ 0:I>1 v' IlN mM 4 .N r-4N I V. *M4.a to - 5 0 09 A50.6 $4l 1e 9: .

514 A -CO C Wv4 wl

61 6 4 4 . 0 f0ra~~~~~~ F-r.w44wV1.1 ;

0 U0' 6161 0ogo>16 4 U

7C 804%0W. $4 0> to

0 $4"4 0 61 9 mI-0 - I0g > *C a o

a,0 r.4 0 0 0 Uc-4 O :0 IV V f la .94 4t*40 t 4 44 $IJ d p4 (d9:64 -140 $40 r4 W 4 I

1141 a~44 k~ 9- ) 61 4 0-

a> a .46 (a 0d 00 1'A1 F- 61 1

*4 4 r 14 4 l4

r-4 0 4 6

1-' C) 0 ~ 0E-4 ch E-

167

$4A

co r-4

0 )-

$40F 0

V4 0

0 - 0

en mm o0HO1

C4 0 -C C t-4 M i n %n 10

.4 toI

0 N- - - - - 0 P41- 0.

to .,

@2 0F0 FAW'Af n Dn ~ H $

Fa r-a

3r- -4~~~441 0 a(JV(d '

ON4 H tv4

"q 04 $4$4 4to > a 0 rq tol

0-r4 Hi E'- HH H.V2Fa 0F

@2s 41

40 $4 to 4to, go 1 C

00 V

168

representatives of Texas sugarberry, water oak, bastardoak and southern red oak (quercus falcata). There were28 species of woody plants recordea-ommunity 42.

Community 43

The overstory woody vegetation in Community 43consisted chiefly of Texas sugarberry and sweetgum (Table96). Trees of these species ranged up to 60 cm in diameter(Table 97). Pecan, bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) andwater oak were also prevalent and showed good size classdistribution. The largest trees recorded were those ofwater oak. Other dominant species including deciduousholly, dogwood, cedar elm, winged-elm and American elm(Ulmus americana) were generally small in size with mostpl-ants representative of the 1-10 cm size class (Table 97).A total of 37 species occurred at Community 43.

Community 44

There were 54 species recorded at Community 44. Themore varied topography of this area is the likely causeof its greater species diversity. Two transects were runon a slope and one on a flat bottomland. The upper partof the slope was dominated by yaupon (Ilex vomitoria),sweetgum and eastern hophornbeam (Ostrya virginana).Associated prevalent species were American beautyberry(Callicarpa americana), blue beech (Carvinus caroliniana),suthern magnolia (Maoligrandiflra)-and loblo7pine (Pinus taeda). The middle-slope area was composedprimarilyof--ue beech. Other principal species weresweetgum, southern magnolia, American beautyberry, yaupon,eastern hophornbeam, winged-elm and southern red oak.The dominant tree species in the flat bottomland areawere blue beech, cedar elm, chestnut oak (Quercus Prinus)and sweetgum. Other prevalent species included water oak,Texas sugarberry, southern red oak, red maple (Acer rubrum)and honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos).

Table 98 is a summary of the slope and bottomlandtransect results at Community 44 and indicates that blue Lbeech, sweetgumf yaupon and southern magnolia were theoverall dominants, Eastern hophornbeam, American beauty-berry, and cedar elm were also prevalent. Tree diameterswere generally within the 1-10 cm size class (Table 99).Large trees of sweetgum, southern magnolia, southern redoak, chestnut oak, water oak and loblolly pine were occ-asionally encountered.

II

-- ' • d:

169

41

00

W r-4 9 C - 0 C 4C 0- 4

00g m N r-4 r--4~ r- %0 0D Wi -

H . .-4 415.w

0 0P I0

43 00:30~~ $4 0w--q~L~ "4

ZnR 0 0[0 >1 0-W C)

C)l 0o 0nr o4r wr- )L , Q04 Ip44 M0AI 0P C4 4~*'

Znr-IJ4 *- *4 * . *

434 q-4 r-4- -4 -H 0o U4

04,'4) % 4 '4N 01 V -

14I--41-4-1 C-H 001 0

04 0n- * r 00L 4 * "r c 0000000004 m00 rei 0o C) n '

4) IdV )0 4 ) *.4

*~4 w0 41~ 0 '

r4.- q 44 0) 0.v-40 U U) 0 : d4

r4 -4 E-i

(a41 04a 44L L

C) to-'r4 - -4C%

'-4c r-4 I 4>1 0 -1-

430 0*.0 -4 C44 4j r4. to 0

00=t ."4 3c tr-4

0 enm C

'H Hn .

-A4 _4 to .0 $4 r=

>11- 4 V 0 43

0e M1 04-ri 4

414F 3 4 0 0 r -

to to r4 0 (d 4) 0 :)4 ol4 01 m tz V44MI4 m r

> $4 >q 43r.- la44la$ -)m

0- b-4 0 $l F. 0 .4to) I) w :3 0 to to 5

04 I0 * * 0E-0 Wn 19 8 I E-4 CFO.4 U

170

10 1

)U

1 - I

*r4 i

0

I1~j40

r-4.

*At

14 0 V0

00

40 0101Iwl

o4 r-4 IUI

U4

$4 4J

0'4 U) e

014 go10

U)Fd - -_______ -

171

0

0

0)C0

IV CCJ

En 10 ri0 0W- nN4NI

0 P0

to enr

00

WN

to -r 0f-O D4J V J H4 04r4 r

V o(m: 0 4

0 to40Hr -P4 t ~ HH Hn

4 to 41 torq 0 oI4

IV 4 0oM$44

4) 0 cN

j H rU)C-

172

41 : 0vm aMm NM- -

04 fno 1,0 Er r- -44

00 to 03m:

4-4 -4 t

-00 r-4 - -4 m 0C0).0

In >r$

00 2 114:f 3540'q ~~ >10 Q~'

inj 4-,I4 * 4 r-4H>1 (d) M%~ dP0O 00k w.c a 0 0Cri 0

V0--4 )4go

to r.fo N 0 m 4

00 ~~~~. *4 iv,4000O~ : 101400 L)4 04 CO

OL. 0 >t 0C1 -1 $4-r.in 4

-d4 A 4 W-4cCc n% % 4L n %01. N"r D 4t

(a 4)r ;4 1 )1 ( ( ( O 1 4 CUIiN C W'4J 14wU 0 E Enl'00 0 1 tgot 0

I) k. 0) A 4 on 9 r. t>1 0~e > V ( r-4 r-4 4 -r ( 0 0-i909 .

c 1f 4 r: 01- E)r 0)$

0J0d o ; l 0 C> 0 ) 0 Ir4-4Ito r-4 m4JI

>04 4> 0N I l014 r0 *vno 0 4J 0 -qW -

0 r- o 4 M 4 0m - 0 r4

1 0 0) r0 00 UtzE- dPf a;-c .44 0)14 0

>1 Inm q 14 m rn00.C4 1 fu

-4 -4 oI -4i1t.11 r- NO NO

Uo 01~J g4 0 9 0 U W.0 Y4 . a) 4J i10- $4'- Ig0Ig 0

to U.-40 toE'-,4 t r-4 ri N

173

41

U4)

$4:%4)O-

0O0 0l

o.): A U

.4J 14 -1 14

>8 1 go -4 $4

-d $4 -'4 a40 4) 4)".0

O 4. Id -

to 0 j 0n

4JI0'.l a)

)4 :3 - %0

0r 9

to -4 4 W: 3 I g o - .4 0) $4 -P4)

0 4) () -4 )

4410

'.4 4)E- r

.A$4 r4 4.-.. $4 0 w ),4$44- r. ::r

0 #-0 V.) w

4)0 0 0)~4

--. 4.4 -

.r0.,4) 0D9.4

,.,4$4 $U4)4

E.E44b~O4 0

ri) i.d

174

00

0)C)E-4 koCJ C4 q

0))

-W N- N0 (n-4O

0 i

U) 0 4)

4J C4

00

i 44

0) 00 U~-0 ~ -

1 ) 44

4)

-44Jq

to 014

o- r-4 0rlr 0 --- ,-9to 0

$4 44 4-4

r44 P-4 CU4

-r4 44 0DI 4t t :

Olga 41 54.o4t 4) go I I> $'

(a F4 w I _)1 - -.

175

Community 45

The bottomland vegetation at Comnunity 45 consistedchiefly of overcup oak (Quercus lyrata), green ash (Fraxinusoensylvanica), hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), water hickory(Cara aquatica) and deciduous holly (Table 100). Thissite is quite wet during spring and early summer but oftenis dry during late summer and fall. Twenty-three specieswere found at Community 45 with representatives generallyhaving stem diameters less than 40 cm (Table 101).

Community 46

The predominant species along the crest of CapersRidge was yaupon. Trees of sweetgum, Texas sugarberry,and winged-elm were also quite abundant. American beauty-berry, which is a shrub, was also frequently encountered.The north slope of Capers Ridge contained a preponderanceof giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea). Sweetgum was alsodominant. Of lesser abundance was water oak, Texas sugar-berry and yaupon. Yaupon was the dominant woody specieson the south slope, and along with American beautyberry,dominated the shrub layer. Prevalent tree species com-prising the mid- and upper-layers were sweetgum, Texassugarberry and winged elm. Devil's walking-stick (Araliaspinosa), water oak and black walnut (Juglans nigra) wereoccasionally observed.

The overall dominants of Community 46 as summarizedin Table 102 were yaupon, sweetgum, giant cane, andTexas sugarberry. Winged-elm, water oak, and Americanbeautyberry were prevalent but less frequently encoun-tered. Most woody plants on Capers Ridge had stem diam-eters between 1 and 10 cm (Table 103). Occasionally,however, large trees of sweetgum, Texas sugarberry, wateroak, black walnut, and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)were observed. There was a good species diversity atCommunity 46 with 45 woody tree and shrub species beingrecorded.

Community 47

Community 47 was a small shallow persistent swamp

with water depths usually less than 2 feet. Green ashwas the predominant species in the swamp (Table 104).Overcup oak and water elm were also frequently recorded.Other associated species were bald cypress and waterlocust (Gleditsia a uatica). Green ash, overcup oak,bald cypress, and water hickory were the only species withrepresentatives having stem diameters greater than 30 cm(Table 105). Sixteen species were recorded at Community 47.

16

176

S4.1 :j * . . _4

00 t r-~N 4 4r-4 ri4 L 05 -4 to0

-4 > rO.

41.- 1- 0)

fa. U 4 g

U0 . C 4-T -i.C4 0% M M 0- 0>1 4r4 )0 9 P 0 1)0to

rq~ N r-4 C

9)0 C 0 S 4V -f o 0 rz

.4Jr: 0Ud V -4 :1

>1 - 4 ~ . . . 4 . . 4) O4 u 0

00 0rot 40

4)

0 u >1 4

a 0)* 4) 0

0 0 04W 44 0 -

#-4 4) V 4(fO14 > *4 c U

.4 4

a 4 (4I

Id4 1 a D 0Q 40 0 (D C

ro0 0

w ''4. A

177

0

$400

M4 a

0 0

r40 9-

00

4J

o0 ~

9-4 n IV

0 0 U

M In o (4 -

0 r-4 0o4 9--f9-

-A en4 %D r4C I 4

*41 C4 tn r- r- 4(4 -w M ri- , O

9- >11 -4I

"1-9' -0f9-%0

400

9-4~r- Vfe 0-W%0 0 00

o- v.g. I wD

0 go 0

> 4 4 0 C*- .- 4 .5: 0 4 .

"4 44 0 f 0W0 0 0 0 6

014 0

41.0) u

&0w4

SoJL

178

0) :03-4.

3.4 r. E-towNMq o- %L -4r0 4) MOO ' ~ -0U4 0 .. 44 01

10) 4) U14

Uo . - %awS e1rm% q N 0 w ,0T -H I -4 g0) 4 . :* 0 ;0 .C;C ;r 4C ;k

4) 01 w40 01 U)

4of ad ;4 , :;c 4. 0 ; v4 0CA

r.- . N r-4EI 0 > - 1

(is 60 0-

0 >1 0 $

0p m)0 e-n %o4 *.w CD9 0 - N("-I to' 0 )

N4 N; 4. 0; C; C;C;C;C 10-4 00

44 4

oA 0i 14i

id4 4)~ % NA0 1 N019: 90 4 9 A c-4 4 q;J 4 ; wV04E

V. 04

4) 244 >) gig.V4 9)0* 0 14

0~~~4 -A44 * *Ie

a0 '- n M D " D t "4 to Vall 0 0

-4UJiU)).1.) $4

r.4 rS4 I4~140 go4

0 w 014Id

0 V*

to0 44 f -4 O uu

ty r4 d 410 > i044 04t f o 0 0 Ido

O10u 0 r-4 U4) 1i0 n46-0 41 0 4 44 k U

o ali a'o44 ".4cN dOC 10

4U KII 00 U4) rl6U 0 4 $:11

No4 49I

179

hl i10 -W41.

-4 0

0 - %

4 -A 00FI

z -4~ 4

01

M N 4.)0

Id 0 5

0 0- 1.4i10 $4G

IIP4 4:

if IN ~$4 n k o-4 0 a0 4v 0.0l

*4 -04 >00

V 0 r.x

o-4 ) C: Id go. 4 k -@4 % 3-4 l i

0 $44 fd-

toA

- ow5441

180

A

0o4J

.9- r- II q

.94

4) %DN -

$4 o4

0 -) C4 r-4 IV r*-j

to rqiC

0 00 -

0r r n -. c4 m ,t 0 ' e-

I- Iq in-

4o r4 ON L f -qOD -l e n M- Lnor V- in4 4q

0- 1 - -S - - -

2 w "'f o- rNNN 4 4 H04 E4

0

*43

o r~-I ~ .4' -

ic " 0

"4C4

U) $" 0

$01 0 04

4-) .92 A 1lIo,4 $4 $4

4 IV 5u 0 'M44.

U) 0 4 m m 9

41

181

00r- 0; 1: C4 JC0' 4 ; 4 0; e

0.g.. l0QvW rlr-4 0% 4J 44 0.r Q> r44 N

0 0 0u > t 0%(N)f N6 - 4C l ~ 0%0 ..* .U *

6-4 4 dP ON maw i-000 6 - 4 0% 0E-Ad Lnr-l g-4 0% C)>

0r 0E

004

V) M dP N w % -w% r m N-1r4 0% 0 X1r- r r0P % > ~ 0 (

$4 M4

4- 4 N 0 %D -W Nr -4 LMCA (n d>I rq 4 - f ~ C N NMr--4 r-40C)0 m V

fC:4) 0 .40]

4)4".4

0 0 go

-P4 * ).10 0 * * 4V :3dP r- -wr nmr 0 4) 'I

.6ed 00 tor4.

Oro1 4) *r0to) -A 044

4 D000 0 *..*** 0 0 0 .4

0VP U) nr4 - r4 lF

4) 0w

0 to0 1. I

0 4

> uL 0 > 0.0

r- 0 4 ,

r34U *4)4)4)4 0 A Oav.ow0 VU4 w4"4 Nt

V4 0 0 11.34w 0. W4 tSr 0 > 1 (

0 >1 FP4 O. 0 N v.4 -# Ou41

a) 1111 $0 0 0

h2)

00%

44 0-0 1%

4-

0 V-0

o r-4 H

to-4 0 4;4

r4 H

0))p.4 mA 0 q 04L 4H

C: I m

V 944

51 N1

0 *d 01.

fH u

ool 03 04A'0 t'l > 4 Au H r4 Do o

41 4j U- 4N

04 A 1 1>

I- > m-, E4

-'9. S: $ W

r-4 X 4 10 Wm 0 I

0 0 0 V434 P-1 a 01 051

E-4 IN- E-4 4t I 1

STUDY AREA 10

Introduction

Study Area 10 was located just to the north of thejunction of the Liberty-Chambers county line and theTrinity River. More specifically, the study communitieswere situated between Lake Granada and Lake Charlotte.Field analyses were accomplished during the spring of1974.

The topography of the study sites was generally flatwith occasional sloughs and depressions. Swamps werefairly common. Geologically the area is composed ofAlluvium deposits of Recent origin within the QuaternaryPeriod. Soils data were not available for Study Area 10at the time of this study. It is likely that all of thestudy communities have been selectively logged in the pastand, with the exception of swamp areas, cattle werepresently grazing.

Land use data for Liberty County was presented inconnection with Study Area 9 and, therefore, will not beincluded in this section.


Ten study communities (Communities 48-57) comprisedStudy Area 10. The location of these communities and theposition of study transects therein, is presented in Figures23 and 24. A total of 1806 plots (5 meters square) wereanalyzed with 214 located in Community 48, 202 in Community49, 210 in Community 50, 200 in Community 51, 102 inCommunity 52, 210 in Community 53, 64 in Community 54, 204in Community 55, and 200 each in Communities 56 and 57.


Community 48 was located on the bank of the TrinityRiver to the west of Lake Granada (Fig. 23). It was aterrestrial site with a relatively flat topography. Com-munity 49 was situated south of Lake Granada on the easttip of the first large bend of the river (Fig. 23). Thearea was generally flat with a slightly higher elevationnear the banks of the river. Community 50 was located onthe west bend to the river (Fig. 23) and had about the samesite characteristics as Community 49. Communities 51 and52 were directly south of Community 50 (Fig. 23). Bothwere transected by shallow erosional waterways but thegeneral topography was flat. Communities 53, 54 and 55 were

183

184

TRIVERY

C53,50 n 5(-8 -9 -0 -1 -2

C-5

C-5

west of Communities 51 and 52 (Fig. 23). Community 53 wassituated on a flat area between the bank of the river anda swamp. Community 54 was a swamp whereas Community 55was a relatively flat, terrestrial site. Communities 56(a swamp site) and 57 (a terrestrial site) were associatedwith Mae Lake (Fig. 24). The topography of these communi-ties was generally flat. All of the areas appeared to begrazed by livestock at present and to have been selectivelylogged in the past.

Result

Community 48

Two species, green ash (Fraxinus pensylvanica) andbald cypress (Taxodium distichum), dominated Community 48(Table 106). Otherless prevalent species were sycamore(Platanus occidentalis), black willow (Salix nigra) andChinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum). The community wascharacterized by an open understory with an average of only2.64 plants per plot. Although the community was terrestrial,many aquatic species were present (Table 106). A totalof 21 species were recorded and the community had a fairlygood size class distribution (Table 107).

Community 49

Community 49 was a fairly open forest with an averageof about 3 shrubs or trees per plot (Table 108). A totalof 20 species were recorded. The community was composedprimarily of green ash in association with Texas sugarberry(Celtis laevigata), sycamore and water hickory (Cyaaqua-tca) Tab e 108). Some rather large trees were scat-tered throughout the area (Table 109).

Community 50

Community 50 sloped very gently downward from the bankof the river to a nearby cypress swamp. The occurrence ofbald cypress as the second dominant species attests to themore hydric nature of this site. Green ash was theprincipal species of this community and, in addition tobald cypress, Texas sugarberry, sycamore and water hickorywere also prevalent (Table 110). There were 24 speciesrecorded in this community averaging 2.68 plants perplot. Size class distribution of representatives of thesespecies is presented in Table 111.

-DK

AD-A097 467 STEPHEN F AUSTIN STATE UNIV NACOGDOCHES TX F/ 6/3VEGETATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE FLOOKPLAIN OP THE TRINIT Y RIVER, TEX--ETC(U

SEP 74 E S NIXON, R L WILLETT DACW63 74-C-0030

UNCLASSIFIED NL

I.I'll I L 3* 0

llal -L

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION IIST CHART

NAFRUNAI 141U A A ' ANDAND I I* A

186

SCALE- 1"* 1320'C -5 ,

MAE

CHAMBES CO.E

Fig. 24. Location of Communities 56 and 57 (C-56 andC-57) and position of transects (solid lines).

187

CC)

-. 4 0L4 r: W; ;4 4-4 C4 0 000I'- to- r-%0C N NI4

o0 > a Vido~-. P-4L ~ 0

> - r--w4 -ImO 0 LuLn4

r=-4 -4 u~ > 010) 0 r. --- j

Id 4~,-4 4J t MnCO M L r-N 0- C 0 4J-.-4 0 IZ

P40-4 N u-I Q p) 54

Cl.Lu 00 4

$4 J -4 C$40 >4 0 0 *-~~u

to N c4 aN w -I mco-1 -Tu 1-

4i~~~~~ 4

0 0 0 0 0 0 %

'0 0 0

> ~ ~ ~ ~ co CO0C D O"%- 1 -I) - 0-w (DC -'- 141 ;4C A A41 ;-:it r-4 r- r4 0 04 a-'

S -- 4 to 011:00 $4$4t

1044~d > 0 4.L

Lu ~ I .- i

jjtlC4 4u) -4 r-4 P-4 u- i . -4

t 00.-

u-4IV 0 44 4

4) j 41 -4

u-I :3 r.~~j 54 m GCr 4) w4

C)~~~$ XJj5'.I4W 41JV 14~OuII

Luu >l 14U){

.0~~ ~ - -) OK 0H1 5 A IIIiv 4J -k 4JiUO

toUr4$

188

A

0

0

4j - H-

0

10 (D ~ eJ r-4u) I

oU) -a O DL , N-

U)

4)

0 *.- No 4rI -

H H 0%rI r 4C)r- - - -

r4 jV0 0

H o U)tI4 0- C:.> ).

0 -r 0t AgEnw.. -HF iA4~ r. H0 U 0 (N

o, go >~ >-'() Ht. Hj to

:3 ®r- 4eI

wi H40t

0 1) 0# oi -

.0 I.) *4 .e.4 Hj 5

E-.4 r 4 0 0)

189

0E

to1U~U 0 rOE1 0%0.~% H 0, a 4 , 4 c

00 r- - ff0 >. . 'A

or r-4

4 P C 7%% N0 0 r-4UI4r4 E

U)0 q44 $ % 04 s9.94 ~ V r. ' 0 WUIE

04~ > c r 0 $4UHP 4j0 .4w% . DC 0 D0 g

m4 ~r-4 >- $

144) A _.4UIo 1i 0 O.640 toC4J HO0 9:14

04 4)4o r4 C) r- .-

C4 4 -40 M 04 OD $04

V1 $4 0

0 to 4)

A 0 -40 0 - 1 .4 0 r -

4) P:.D HH IP Ln in m %% DVNc DI

*u0 M 961

r. 0 EU .§ 0 ' M 0

$.9

>1 EU4 I0 0) ga f010 4 r) - 4 4t

-46 (0c OOUE1. "4 V4 0

o~r U) -~ r4 a0. M.

w 0 EUU 0U 0M

-A o8wo 0 f-0>)4 0 &0U1 0 EU

0 5

d - - -do

190 1

A

0

114Go

0

"14

>1 I

-. 4

oto

V-4 in (n N NI4JoI r-4

90 "4

.43N

-W LM Uqr.q N I r-4 r'J V- w e

r4

o -i r-4 0wr 4 0

.41 C4 -4 In 0 co(n N %0 v.-4CN 0g- ,..-44"

r4 r-4

04 0

toogo r "4 gal '4~a fa 14o- 1 4 0

(n C: "4 "4 44 - )1

.00 r, m4040Or

> 41"4> r0 0 o#a1to :s w0 o

?A4' f4 4?Ai

rN 413 4)o.9.4 Idoq44

10 r4"048,11 4 D IQT

J 191

M 'V

to, m Jil

0.' to 9

go -w . r-4O~.4O~~ .4 1 0to 4 .4 6)

if 1

to -41 A4.1 .. 1qj

E-! r-4 -4r -4 0 04 to 0

r- >-0 54F-1 -if -A m :

04*4Jr4. ' 41 3 i 4

04.1 00 0 0r44 41 -4 ~ ,r4. - ,- r . 4 0 W o tEul en %DR 9- 4 F40rlrfC4 % dM0 r

jd Ij2JIL. .4g aa Q ;C ;C

(d *d V * *d 04 0

4) Eu4 ..4 s

94 44~ > 041

"4 o

.94~~~0 -ArN.4.,. W>1 PCl~

Eui -A -*'0) r-

1 03dP$ 0.0

$40 .9 1*4ur94 r- v 9-4

*0S 44 0 4 r

r4 "q r4 44 54r

ISO Q4 000( W4 I4V~ iL"4 VO4 4 W516 0 r- I0

0 .0 > 4 a 40 0 IS5)

C; $4

192

A

,-4

.000

r.4

0

- to

(ID V4 q %D4 9- i A

9-4V-

000

'-41

to 0- 4 S

10 0o N

~~~4 4) P D1,4 0M .40 0Fa out'.4 t4 "

a r4F-44(-00- Ln4 0#-I w I w Jr-I(' w 0 0 %

044 0E-4 U)4E- 0 U ' 'IO0 E-4

193

Community 51

Community 51 was a rather dense canopied, unlayeredforest with an open understory. Bush palmetto (Sabal minor)was scattered throughout. The topography was generallyflat but several shallow erosional waterways transectedthe site. The overwhelming dominant woody species in thiscommunity was green ash (Table 112). Plants of commonelder-berry (Sambucus canadensis), American elm and Texassugarberry were occasionally recorded. There was anaverage of about 5 plants per plot and a total of 22 speciesin this community. Tree dbh were usually less than 40cm (Table 113).

Community 52

The topography of Community 52 was generally flat butseveral shallow erosional waterways also transected thissite. Although the vegetation is indicative of a swamp,4he area was not inundated at the time of the study. Andfrom the appearance of the site, it is not likely thatthe area is inundated for any great length of time. Thewoody vegetation consisted chiefly of bald cypress inassociation with water elm (Planera aquatica) and greenash (Table 114). Box elder (Acer Negundo- was also quiteprevalent. Stems of the 14 re-orded species in thiscommunity were generally small (Table 115). There was anaverage of 3.61 trees and shrubs per plot. Of specialnote was the occurrence of the trunked form of bush palmetto(Sabal minor) in this community.

Community 53

A fairly dense canopy and the presence of many woodyvines characterized Community 53. This community wasdominated by sycamore associated with Texas sugarberry,water hickory, green ash and swamp privet (Forestieraacuminata) (Table 116). Sixteen species were recordedand they averaged 2.35 plants per plot. There were severallarger trees present but most had dbh less than 40 cm(Table 117).

Community 54

The shallow water swamp site comprising Community 54was dominated by water elm, green ash, bald cypress andswamp privet (Table 118). Only 12 species were recordedand they averaged a little more than 5 plants per plot.Most of the trees in the community had dbh less than 40cm (Table 119).

194 1

) M 4Vr -r4 c

0 0 -~4 N r4H-4H.4P- -4 C14 O.14 0> VH

00

1 WL)

0 *r U* * * * * * * * * * . .r-4).. *

r- 9 dP en c; 4 Uv; 9 4 c; 0 *c; it r 200-4 V -4 0D > 0-l9

U) rHE r- "4 .4laUc

d) 4 ) C0f 0

>4 >>1 4) q4 EU 4) 11N~ .o 0 w x

(d L0dP fIco % I mN M 4H4 D 0D 0r-4I >- -4 V

04 41 0L4

0 0

4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ LU LU-I r -IF4N w000 ty to

4-LU ;C;C ;C ; C C V km A dC

LU4 0 LU #-1 0

0~ 41 4) 44 w2

id OC, 4 0 9: w

LU w 0 9e

4) 0 $4

V4 r4C V

a) LU to "4

:3 ~ dP m co' 4,4 9 .4 w O "4 4JH

w) r4 N N02- -Irqr4 4t

0 4)4

r3 U1 $ 2

Ln :3 ~4) - 4ei $4 00 d40

cI 00)Lto0 0 4 V t

a 54 $4 f- 4Hf W20 44$ 'i- 1 * 0L

H4 >) Lo U00 m go d L

d) :1 0 LU )C

r4XCO4 r 1 444Ix r4) L,11 0i

195

Q

A

0%

0 W

Vn 0 nr4 - 0 c

0 10

n wa", wn%

0 0 4

014 -4A

V H4c D% o w - c0

r. 14 0

040

0 0 wf nL rlr L 0.-. 4 4 H4 9-4 44'1

0 H 0

04 M 0

0 to0>I IN H d r4 A~

0 H d H HY4H4 H

C4 4 s : io- m 0 1uIn ,4 In r. I

- wH$4 0

0 01141 0

Ii) to 0 ) -

lu H4W)

1.96

4iJ 000 C0 C;CA ; C

"40> IVaM -4 r 0 -

'00

%Z 10-

4.) ~ I~t~HP 04 K 0 0 0

(a- j m tfn4~ a oo- 0 nmc 0 04V) .4 ~ . . 04

11. 0 M. N -4r-4 d).(o

m. 4-)rJ qwr ~ 0 0 w0 00

k0 40 ,.1. V- r-O nOD-4- L * rIv H

4J0 0a 0a 0 ( r0a) 0 0

0> >10 m)0

0 400 0 'O r 44 4 c 00

'0 9 ):>1 toj

0>1 v uchCienI om NO 0 1-4 0t

0Ll0n ~ 00 M m.0

0P04 0)

>14

'0 u > 0 i 4.) C) 4

0Wo I o 0 '000 0 Id $40

0)~~~~r 4) M

4.) IA *)rP4 A01 11I --0 t

0 -A $4 Z ,4

0 EU 004)4

>41 0 1 00 o.04) P-0 0.- 0- o0 N4

E- At r At W Dt M E- 49 0 1 41-4

mw__~ 0 C

197

0

.A

0A

L) I

fts P4 C

L, n Iw

0 0

4)D NM ar 04

,4 4 (DC4,

U -I r J .0U

1 0

0 -4I -4) Cv,- rI

00

o 4 er AH

-o 0

.0)4

V) tU)4 U) -4

4900 0 0 t

a k0 0 -ga go d v0 E-4~

r4 I, k.r I -

0)r P:3.r4 $UW.~K14 H >

(ai ) $ 41r4 $4 u 0 ~fO 0 0 Cf

-4 0 Ml 0 )r

198

to 43Wr W - 4V n-

00 la -WM N r-l -4 4 .4 0CI

>3 04 OwC n40r -C>c n0 0

4-4 43dP a;~~.4- 0; 9 *c ;to -.hc -4 0 a )

(12 ,- '-40 00 0ot ox

04 > 1V$4 P141 -4a r- %D LOO -4C)N 0 0 0 0

-4 1 0413 C C4 V; ; CN~ I,4 0,4 9 Oc 1 n .

r. N-4 ,-q r-4 0% 0P4:to' > $4

04 43) S:44

$4~~- 43 ,12

o0 00md4-4 V 4-4 - 0 M LA(C4 r cq *- LA $4 w o2

01 c' a.a... D........D..* a aM 0 0o

O4V0 0 t

> 0 -HLA- 4 -4 i - fn 'r- qT -4 (w $4

toI 0w P-4 r4-4 ,4 H 0 'W 4- 4 -4 00

ro 04 0 4.

%D- M' MU)c -4 (P 4'1 43 0

"-4 0

(12 $4U) (a

Z4 .,1-4 - 0r%W.1

U' .0 > - 4 1> , r1043 . r-4 r4 '0 to4 H 4) 0

$4 0 '000 W >151 4 r.4j 0 'V F4ktMU . 0 ol0 w 04 0 go1 M 04 4) I

00 0 $ 4410 $4 C~ 0 t

v-IlV- w1 '414 0 0 W 4-:3 ~ 0 go: Aw 0 aMl0 M >

H001r.40) {1 0d "4P0d A. 0 040 M MfeX to1 r-l E z 4j Hrl41 x X0 t 1J4rI -A

0- 0 gow0 400 JJ la0(12 9 t 4UO) ~ ~ ~ ut -al o ) &

199

A

0

OHI-

Ln

41'

v4 rI4.0

WU4

0

C01 NV4e 0 tom) N N4

0 en w0k4)

041

U) I 'rq'0U

U) 0)

H i H -4).L 0')

do to r0

V V >

0) H)t a $ -

U) ) r- o 0 3r E-H- HA IV:344 w

f441 41 r w4 ffi0,a H) go P-1 w )IHqto 0 r4 OU)USk04I0000.4 ~0404 4)0 I 0- 9

200L

5-4 4 I0 g0

4...

0 > r4 C N N

(d jd) wwg

EU 0094

> >1 0 0 4E-4 4J'J~ M 0 v C) ciN c

p.4 W P .

-v40. .4 0 w

Id 4) 0-

V 44

54 1 00 0i U4E

EU@0 k

0)00) @34 >

EU-44 -4 C. fa

4J w In en-4J V -V4t

.14 ) "q3to M35u

' ~ 44 U..

EU 0

: >1 IV 4 $

.,I V 5

IV3. 0

w4 U . j 0i 0$ 40id 4 0 Ai )4v4 4 )

:3 ~ ~ ~ ~ @ *V 00 j> 1$

r-4 to r mll440 -4 V0 0AX1%

*~i 0. 02r0009H: 0 ~0 EU .04 " t

Hj5d00 :4 P4 4 0 4

A

0

a

>1

.A I

IS 0

'0r H

43 N

0 4 04 U r-4- H D H

to I H400

U) $4

4) ~ ~ ' C1 % o D0 14 -r. 1 H H1 r4r-

4 44

041

4

r4 Ud OU 0 -

10 $4 $44

H r1 4) 0Ar

U 40

r-4 .4.. H

E-4 40WE400

202

Community 55

Community 55 was a rather open forest consistingchiefly of green ash in association with water hickory andTexas sugarberry (Table 120). Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.),cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia) and overcup oak Quercuslyrata) were somewhat prevalent. A density of less than 2plants per plot was recorded representing a total of 18species. Trees generally had dbh less than 40 cm (Table 121).

Community 56

The swamp vegetation comprising Community 56 containeda preponderance of bald cypress (Table 122). The onlyother species encountered with any frequency were waterelm, common buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) andgreen ash. There was an average of 2.73 plants per plotand a total of 9 species recorded. With the exception ofbald cypress and green ash, trees had dbh less than 40 cm(Table 123).

Community 57

Community 57 was composed primarily of green ash (Table124). The next 3 dominants were the hydrophytic speciesbald cypress, water elm and swamp privet indicating thatalthough the forest was terrestrial, r somewhat hydriccondition existed,. Actually the plot transects were alongthe shores of Mae Lake (Fig. 24). There was an averagedensity of 5.65 plants per plot and a total of 11 speciesrecorded (Table 124). Only bald cypress and green ash hadtrees with dbh greater than 40 cm (Table 125).

.1.

203

00 r-4WW~ -

0.r- Id 0 - -r4f4-

0 -AIdr-

U) 'I

4) g 0%*44 0 * * * *

-4 %o r-G 0ODr n4n0 r4

04 4J aJ

0 0 4

0r m6 C4H - 4r r400C )

0 to

4J a,41.1

204

co

0D

0-to

r-4 0nc

U II

r4 0

Hn -0 en- N- nf

* 44

m C4 0% m W w .fr-

1 co N - U) I

I~ aa,4Cl - 4t

r 4 r-4 00 0 .. 4~-

0) I - m H- Nw en

0N .4

0 H N

044

10

>) H#

0l 111,0 10 tH .6.40 0

a1 04144. 140N) 0) H 4

Wf .to HO 14

41 .,4 .1 6r.4

En uH kt 04

205

toG H ~ OULAI O %

0. a.)C

to - Go 0

E-I u

C) ,.44 W - n r wN 0

fd d C C C;C;C;C; 0% 0

43

44 4 2 H- 4r 0r N C - - n

o V

Eu 4)0 EA

to V)

HG) H' V -

-4-

Eu Io ~ ~ ~ j > Ha) . . . .- rl * I I

.450 4 0

m E4 u N- -

5-4 4.4 F

4)u r4 H-iii ~~$ ihf;(~t~ IL 0

H 0 41E- n e4

206

o

0

Ln

C iDw 0O

00

10 0C

rI Ln n IU I

01 N

H0L Ln % 0

r4

oI r- r- 0

tytAInq

O '-4134

04-

0U

to I %01

In 00 1

0 U 0urH 4) 41

4 to 41 w,a~I $4fafe 4 -

A ra 40 ~014 H4x arj r4HA r -4

~00 4 j 0

14 u. 0~ 0 X . 0 $4t

v k4 mHI~i0 E-

207

004 >o ~ -M~ H

14-1~

0> MH 4L M% - -

0 -A004

H 4J dP ~ H. q L H , 49m 4 u

0) 90C

> E

4 -. 4 .. I . .. . -. .0.0

4- Id MHPQWWW0 -

H- H1-

04 4-)

0 0ti, 4.4 H - - 4 M $

or >,0 VnW0mNr400Q0 %

0 ~0

0 >1 41)

C0 ur4

-4 ~ ~ (d 0,qM T-40-4 V24

010 InnI44LAf0UU H

r. . . .

.4.) ~M U ( -4 rI -

ra rs 044

FA H Ju 09:1r4> 0 44

0.1. C) 1

>l~ 00 > )0. 0 > H

04 f" 0 to 4, C

r34) L) A 4)-A(

Id 1 $4140 4 .4.

NCo 0 a'44H1 4.4 14~ 0 Co

0 ~ 144' C

H4 Id H4)E40 P 4 E4 41e44O Ha3404-

lk4

208

A

>1N N

41

0 0

w In

U- U) LA L

Ui I

'0 1H

o OD N r-4

r. I r-. H - 4 wCca H- 5-0-4

IM 0

H Ht041

H 1r q: N~tolqa0 HH N

o M kv k~ FA a41

Ln $4

(fl 0 3g Hkq 4UC:-P 4J 41 r4

V- 00 0 UA H4 V 0Og 4 d 4

E-4 0n N- f- N ' C

I i

RESULTS (SUIIMARY) AND DISCUSSION

A total of 11,977 (5m)2 plots were analyzed withinthe 10 study areas (57 communities) associated with thefloodplain of the Trinity River. These plots containedan average of 4.83 woody plants with dbh greater than1/2 cm and an overall total of 57,508 plants representing97 species.

Based on importance value, the 10 most dominantplants in the river floodplain listed in order of de-creasing importance values were cedar elm (Ulmuscrassifolia) (38.7), Texas sugarberry (Celtis--aevigata)(36.8, green ash (Fraxinus pensylvanicaT (32.0), tupelo(N ssa aguatica) (17.3), deciduous holly (Ilex decidua)(15.4), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) U5-70), haw-thorn (Crataegus spp.)10.3T, swamp privet (Forestieraacuminata) (8.3), water elm (Planera a uatica) (6.2) androughleaf dogwood (Cornus Drummondii) 6.0). The domi-nance of tupelo and bald cypress is attributed mainlyto their large size and thus a high relative dominancewhereas deciduous holly, hawthorn and swamp privet hadhigh frequencies and densities. On a frequency basis,Texas sugarberry, hawthorn, green ash, deciduous hollyand cedar elm were the most commonly encountered speciesin plots within the Trinity River floodplain.

Other prevalent species, in addition to the 10 mostdominant, were water hickory (Carya aguatica), pecan(Carya illinoinensis), sweetgum (Liquidambar Styraciflua),overcup oak (Quercus lyrata), black willow (Salix nigra)and American elm (Ulmus americana).

When noting the single dominant species of each ofthe 57 communities, cedar elm, Texas sugarberry andgreen ash were the dominants in 14, 12 and 11 communitiesrespectively. No other species was dominant in morethan 2 communities. When selecting the top 3 dominantsin each of the 57 communities, as based on importancevalue, these same 3 species were the most frequent dom-inants. Cedar elm was among the top 3 dominants in 31communities (54%), Texas sugarberry in 28 (49%) andgreen ash in 25 (44%). Deciduous holly was 1 of 3 dom-inants in 9 communities, bald cypress in 8, water elmin 7, hawthorn in 6 and swamp privet in 5. Pecan,overcup oak, sweetgum and sycamore were among the top 3dominants in 4 communities.

To gain a greater insight into the distributionalaspects of the species in the Trinity floodplain, presence

209

E - -

210

data were calculated. Presence, as used in this study,is a measure of the regularity of distribution of aspecies in different communities of the basin (Phillips,1959). Only 15 of the 97 recorded species in the TrinityRiver floodplain had presence values greater than 40%.Green ash (93.0%), Texas sugarberry (89.5%) and cedarelm (84.2%) occurred in over 80% of the 57 communities.These species were generally evenly distributed withinthe portion of the basin studied from the Dallas-FortWorth area to the Liberty-Chambers county line. Theyidere also the top 3 dominants. Deciduous holly (78.9%),hawthorn (77.2%), swamp privet (71.9%), American elm(70.2%), gum bumelia (Bumelia lanuginosa) (68.4%) andhoney locust (Gleditsia triacahthos) (96.7%) had presencevalues between 60% and 80%. All displayed a balanceddistribution within the basin but American elm, gumbumelia and honey locust were not among the 10 dominantspecies. Those species with presence values between40% and 60% were red mulberry (Morus rubra) (59.6%),persimmon (Diospyros virginianaTT.9-T-,overcup oak(57.9%), pecan (52.6%), water hickory (43.9%) and soapberry (Sapindus Saponaria) (43.9%). Red mulberry,persimmon and pecan were regularly distributed in thebasin whereas overcup oak and water hickory were moreuniformly observed in the southern half. Soap berrywas more abundant in the northern half. None of these6 species were representatives of the top 10 dominantsof the basin. The remaining 4 dominants of the basinrevealed a more restricted distribution. Tupelo (3.5%)occurred in only 2 communities but displayed high fre-quency and density figures and especially high dominance(basal area) measurements within each community. Thehigh relative dominance figure was most responsible forits position in the top 10 dominants. Bald cypress(31.6%) and water elm (35.1%) were more abundant in thesouthern portion of the basin while roughleaf dogwood(31.6%) was more frequent in the northern communities.

To determine variation in community compositionamong the 57 communities analyzed in the Trinity RiverBasin, a community ordination was made. Ordinationprocedures followed those proposed by Cox (1972) andthe results obtained are presented in Figure 25. Eightclusters were inductively delineated. Community ordi-nation generally correlated with the geographic positionof communities within the basin in that the A groupingcontained mostly upper-basin communities, the B groupingmostly mid-basin communities and groups E and G mostlylower-basin communities. This same correlation couldapply to moisture in that the upper-basin is generallydrier than the lower basin.

__________________

d -.--

211

.8I !G

* IE

* G.7 \ 0',

' 30

.3 J

.2

', /D

.1 8 6Si I

3 2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8

X

Fig. 25. Ordination of communities and delineatedclusters (A - Communities 3, 4, 5, 12 and 13;B - Communities 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15,17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29,31, 32, 35, 38, 41 and 55; C - Communities 8,16, 27, 40, 42 and 43; D - Communities 30, 34,44 and 46; E - Communities 45, 49, 51 and 53;F - Communities I and 22; G - Communities 36,37, 39, 47, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56 and 57; H -Community 33).

212

Community 33 (H cluster) was comprised almost solelyof black willow with only 4 other species rarely present.As observed, this community displayed little correlationin species composition with other communities. The Acluster upper-basin communities were characterized by apreponderance of cedar elm. This species overwhelminglydominated all 5 communities. Trees of soapberry, Texassugarberry, green ash, hawthorn, American elm, gum bumeliaand swamp privet were subordinate associates. Communitieswithin the B cluster were generally dominated by Texassugarberry with cedar elm and green ash as less prevalentcodominants. Texas sugarberry was the top dominant in11 of the 25 communities whereas cedar elm and green ashwere dominant in 8 and 4 respectively. These 3 species,therefore, were the dominants in 23 of 25 communities inthis cluster and, in addition, were the top 3 dominantsin 7 communities. Other locally associated species werepecan, hawthorn, box elder (Acer Negundo), deciduousholly, roughleaf dogwood, swamp privet, bottomland postoak (Quercus similis), overcup oak, willow oak (QuercusPhellos), honey locust, water hickory and dogwood (Cornusracemosa).

Cluster C appeared to represent communities dis-tributed on slightly drier, better drained ridge areaswithin the floodplain. Predominate species were greenash, post oak (Quercus stellata), deciluoys holly, haw-thorn, cedar elm and Texas sugarberry associated withroughleaf dogwood, white ash (Fraxinus americana),southern red oak (Quercus falcata), pecan, sweetgum andwater oak (Quercus igra). Drier terrace slopes (D clus-ter) contained such dominants as post oak, water oak,blue beech (Carpinus caroliniana) and yaupon (Ilexvomitoria). Principal associated species were sweetgum,black hickory (Carya texana), southern red oak and Texassugarberry. The shrub, American beautyberry (Callicarpaamericana), was also prevalent.

Communities in the lower portion of the basin (Ecluster) were mostly dominated by green ash along withovercup oak and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). Af-filiated species were Texas sugarberry, hawthorn, Amer-ican elm and water hickory. The shrub, American elder(Sambucus canadensis) was locally frequent.

Clusters F and G contained the more hydric communi-ties which were much more frequent in the southern halfof the basin. Cluster F contained 2 slough communities(1 and 22) composed primarily of swamp privet in asso- -ciation with eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides),

I

213

box elder, water locust (Gleditsia aguatica) and greenash. The G cluster was comprised mostly of swamp commu-nities. Communities 48, 50 and 57 were terrestrial butcontained many species in common with the actual swamps.Green ash and bald cypress were the first and seconddominant species, respectively, in each of these commu-nities. Sycamore and water elm were also abundant. Theswamps were dominated by tupelo (Communities 36 and 37),water elm (Communities 39 and 54), bald cypress (Commu-nities 52 and 56) and green ash (Community 47). Thesesame species were codominants in other swamp communitiesalong with common buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis),water locust, sycamore, overcup oak and Carolina ash(Fraxinus caroliniana).

Most of the woody species recorded in the TrinityRiver Basin communities are far-ranging in their dis-tribution. They are a part of the composition of theSwamp Chestnut Oak - Cherrybark Oak (Type 91), Sweetgum -Nuttall Oak - Willow Oak (Type 92), Sugarberry - AmericanElm - Green Ash (Type 93), Sycamore - Pecan - AmericanElm (Type 94), Black Willow (Type 95), Overcup Oak -Water Hickory (Type 96), Baldcypress (Type 101),Baldcypress - Water Tupelo (Type 102) and Water Tupelo(Type 103) forest cover types of the Southern Forestregion (Society of American Foresters, 1954). Thesetypes are found throughout the Soathern Forest, occupyingfloodplains of the major rivers. Wooy Trinity Riverfloodplain species are generally abundant northward aswell as eastward as indicated by more localized sUudies.Many of these species have been recorded in studies,including those by Nixon et al. (1973) and Nixon, Willettand Cox (unpublished data) in the Neches River floodplainof Texas, Chambless and Nixon (1974) in the AngelinaRiver floodplain of Texas, Hefley (1937) and Ware andPenfound (1949) in the South Canadian River floodplainin Oklahoma, Bellah and Hulbert (1974) in the RepublicanRiver floodplain in Kansas and Hosner and Minckler (1963)in river floodplains in southern Illinois.

Jid

- --- --. r --..-

214

LITERATURE CITED

Anderson County Conservation Needs Committee. 1967.Statistical report, conservation needs inventory,Anderson County, Texas.

Anderson-Houston Soil and Water Conservation District.1965. District program and plan.

Anonymous. 1966. An appraisal of potential for outdoorrecreational developments in Liberty County, Texas.

Anonymous. 1967a. An appraisal of potential for out-door recreational developments in Dallas County,Texas.

Anonymous. 1967b. An appraisal of potential for out-door recreational development in Ellis County, Texas.

Anonymous. 1967c. An appraisal of potential for out-door recreational developments in Kaufman County,Texas.

Anonymous. 1967d. An appraisal of potential for out-door recreational developments in Leon County, Texas.

Anonymous. 1967e. An appraisal of potential for out-door recreational developments in Navarro County,Texas.

Bellah, R. G. and L. C. Hulbert. 1974. Forest succes-sion on the Republican River floodplain in ClayCounty, Kansas. Southwest. Nat. 19:155-166.

Braun, E. L. 1950. Deciduous forests of eastern NorthAmerica. The Blakiston Company, Philadelphia.

Bray, W. L. 1906. Distribution and adaptation of thevegetation of Texas. University of Texas Bull. 82.

Chambless, L. F. and E. S. Nixon. 1974. Woody vegeta-tion - soil relations in a bottomland forest ofeast Texas. Texas J. Sci. (in press).

Collier, G. L. 1964. The evolving east Texas woodland.Ph. D. Thesis, University of Nebraska, Lincoln,Nebraska.

Conservation Needs Committee. 1967. Statistical reportof conservation needs, San Jacinto County.

215

Correll, ). S. and 14. C. Johnston. 1970. Manual ofvascular plants of Texas. Texas Research Founda-tion, Renner, Texas.

County Conservation Needs Inventory Committee. 1967.Statistical report, conservation needs inventory,Henderson County, Texas.

Cox, G. W. 1972. Laboratory manual of general ecology.Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa.

Dallas County Conservation Needs Inventory Committee.1970. Soil and water conservation needs inventory,Dallas County.

Ellis County Conservation Needs Committee. 1970. EllisCounty conservation needs inventory.

Finch, Gayle, Thacker Bollinger and Buford L. McLauchlin.1967. An appraisal of potential for outdoor rec-reational developments in Henderson County, Texas.

Gould, F. W. 1969. Texas plants - a checklist andecological summary. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull.MP-585.

Graves, H. E., Roy Marris, Jerrell Shaw and D. H. Taylor.1967. An appraisal of potential for outdoor rec-reational development in Tarrant County, Texas.

Hefley, H. M. 1937. Ecological studies of the SouthCanadian River floodplain in Cleveland County,Oklahoma. Ecol. Monogr. 7:345-402.

Hosner, J. F. and L. S. Minckler. 1963. Bottomlandhardwood forests of southern Illinois - regenerationand succession. Ecol. 44:29-41.

Kaufman County Conservation Needs Inventory Committee.1967. Statistical report, conservation needs in-ventory, Kaufman County, Texas.

Leon County Conservation Needs Committee. 1970. LeonCounty conservation needs inventory.

Liberty County Conservation Needs Committee. 1958.Liberty County inventory of land capabilities,uses, soil and water problems and needed conserva-tion treatment present 1958 and by 1975.

1

216

Liberty' County Conservation Needs Committee. 1970. Aninventory of land capabilities, uses, soil and wa-ter problems and needed conservation treatment forLiberty County, Texas.

Aeade, William D. 1970. Interim soil survey interpre-tations of Navarro County, Texas. U. S. Dept. ofAgr. Soil Conservation Service.

Miller, Horace J., Jim P. Counts, J. W. Hightower, WadeJohnson, Billy J. Weaver and J. L. Hopkins. 1967.An appraisal of potential for outdoor recreationaldevelopments in San Jacinto County, Texas.

Navarro County Conservation Needs Committee. 1967.Navarro County conservation needs inventory.

Nixon, E. S., L. F. Chambless and J. L. Malloy. 1973.Woody vegetation of a palmetto (Sabal minor) areain east Texas. Texas J. Sci. 24:535-5---

Phillips, E. A. 1959. Methods of vegetation study.Henry Holt and Company, Inc.

Society of American Foresters. 1954. Forest cover typesof North America. Society of American Foresters,Washington, D. C.

Tarrant County Conservation N4eeds Inventory Committee.1967. Conservation needs inventory, Tarrant County,Texas, statistical report.

Texas Almanac and State Industrial Guide, 1972-1973.1971. A. H. Belo Corp., Dallas, Texas.

Texas Almanac and State Industrial Guide, 1974-1975.1973. A. H. Belo Corp., Dallas, Texas.

Texas Organization for Endangered Species (TOES). 1974.List of rare and endangered species of Texas.

Tharp, B. C. 1926. Structure of Texas vegetation eastof the 98th meridian. University of Texas Bull.2606.

Tharp, B. C. 1939. The vegetation of Texas. The AnsonJones Press, Houston, Texas.

U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service.1964. Soil survey, Ellis County, Texas. U. S. Gov-ernment Printing Office, Washington, D. C.

A 4

217

U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service.1972. General soil map, Dallas County, Texas.Temple, Texas.

U. S. Study Commission. 1962. The report of the U. S.Study Commission - Texas. Part II. Resources andProblems. House Document No. 494. Pt. 2.

a.

Ware, G. H. and W. T. Penfound. 1949. The vegetationof lower levels of the floodplain of the SouthCanadian River in central Oklahoma. Ecology 30:478-484.

Geological Maps

University of Texas, Bureau of Economic Geology; GeologicAtlas of Texas: scale 1:250,000.

Beaumont Sheet, 1968Dallas Sheet, 1972Palestine Sheet, 1967Waco Sheet, 1970

I.

*1!

218

Appendix 1. Partial checklist of herbaceous specieswithin the Trinity River Basin including annotationof rare and endangered species generally followingthe Texas Organization for Endangered Species (1974)(indicated by *)

Common name Scientific name

Agrimony Agrimonia parviflora Ait.

Agrimony Agrimonia rostellata Wallr.

Alfalfa Medicago sativa L.

Alkali mallow Sida hederacea (Hook.) Gray

Amaranth Amaranthus arenicola I. M.Johnst.

Amaranth Amaranthus Palmeri Wats.

Amberique bean Stroehostyles helvola (L.)Ell.

American basket-flower Centaurea americana Nutt.

American germander Teucrium canadense L.

American nightshade Solanum americanum Mill.

American potato bean Apios americana Medic.

American water-willow Justicia americana (L.) Vahl.

Anemone Anemone caroliniana Walt.

Anemone Anemone heterophylla Nutt.

Annual fleabane Erigeron annuus (L.) Pers.

Annual hairgrass Aira elegans Gaud.

Annual yellow sweet- Melilotus indicus (L.) All.clover

Antelope horn Asclepias viridis Wall.

219

Appendix 1. Continued.


Arrowhead Sagittaria graminea Michx.

Arrowhead Sagittaria montevidensisCham. & Schlecht

Arrowhead Sagittaria platyphylla Engelm.

Arrowvine Polygonum sagittatum L.

Asparagus Asparagus officinalis L.

Aster Aster Eulae Shinners

Aster Aster lateriflorus (L.) Britt.

Aster Aster patens Ait.

Aster Aster pratensis Raf.

Aster Aster subulatus Michx.

Atlantic pigeon wings Clitoria mariana L.

Autumn bentgrass Agrostis perennans (Walt.)

Tuckerm.

Autumn zephyr-lily Zephyranthes candida Herb.

Baby blue-eyes Nemophila microcalyx (Nutt.)Fisch. & Mey.

Baby blue-eyes Nemophila phacelioides Nutt.

Bahia grass Paspalum notatum Flugge

Baldwin ironweed Vernonia Baldwinii Torr.

Balloon-vine Cardiospermum Halicacabum L.

Barley Hordeum vulgare L.

Barnaby star-thistle Centaura solstitialis L.

Barnyard grass Echinochloa crusgalli (H.B.K.)Hitchc.

Ii

220

Appendix i. Continued.


Barnyard grass Echinochloa crusgallii (L.)Beauv. var. zelayensis(H.B.K.) Hitch.

Basil beebalm Monarda clinopodiodes Gray.

Basket flower Centaurea americana Nutt.

Beak rush Rhynchospora caduca Ell.

Beak rush Rhynchospora capitellata(Michx.) Vahl

Beak rush Rhynchospora globularis(Chapm.) Small

Beak rush Rhynchospora glomerata (L.)~Vahl

Beaked cornsalad Valerianella radiata (L.)Dufr.

Beard grass Bothriochloa saccharoides var.longipaniculata (Gould) Gould

Beard-tongue Penstemon laxiflorus Penn.

Beard-tongue Penstemon tenuis Small

Bear's foot Polymnia Uvedalia (L.) L.

Beggar-ticks Bidens discoidea (T. & G.)Britt.

Beggar-ticks Bidens laevis (L.) B.S.P.

Beggar's-ticks Desmodium laevigatum (Nutt.)DC.

Beggar's-ticks Desmodium Nuttallii (Schindl.)

Schul.

Beggar's-ticks Desmodium obtusum (Willd.) DC.

221



Beggar's-ticks Desmodium sessiliflorum(Torr.) T. & G.

Beggar's-ticks Desmodium, viridiflorum (L.)DC.

Big bluestem Andropogon Gerardi Vitman

Bitterweed Helenium. amarum (Raf.) Rock

Bitterweed Hymenoxys linearifolia Hook.

Black medic Medicago Lupulina L.

Blackroot Pterocaulon virgatum (L.) DC.

Blackseed needlegrass Stipa avenacea L.

Black snakeroot Sanicula canadensis L.Bladder-pod Lesguerella recurvata (Gray)

Wats.

Bladder pod Sesbania vesicaria (Jacq.)F Eli.

FBladder sedge Carex intumescens Rudge

Bladderwort Utricularia subulata L.

Blazing-star Liatris pycnostachya Michx.

Blister buttercup Ranunculus sceleratus L.

Bloadleaf Iresine rhizomatosa Standi.

Greene

Blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchium pruinosum Bickn.3

Bluegrass Poa annua L.

Bluegrass Poa autumnalis Eli.

222



Blue jasmine clematis crispa L.

Blue larkspur Delphinium carolinianum Walt.

Blue sage Salvia azurea Lam.

Blue star Amsonia illustris Woods.

Bluet Hedyotis crassifolia Raf.

Bluet Hedytis nigricans (Lam.)

Bluet Hedyotis uniflora (L.) Lam.

Blunt-lobed woodsia Woodsia obtusa (Spreng.) Torr.

Blunt leaf bedstraw Galium obtusum Bigel.

Blunt spikerush Eleocharis obtusa (WiELd.)Schult.

Bog-hemp Boehmeria cylindrica (L.)Sw. var. cylindrica

Bog marsh-cress Rorippa islandica (Qeder)Borbas

Bog-rush Juncus trigonocarpus Steud.

Boltonia Boltonia diffusa Ell.

Bowlesia Bowlesia incana R. & P.

*Branched sedge Carex, decomposita, Kuhl.

Brazilian vervain Verbena brasiliensis yell.

Britton sedge Carex Brittoniana Bailey

Broadleaf signalgrass Brachiaria glayylla

Brome Bromus commutatus Schrad.

Appendix 1. Continuedoi


Brookweed Samolus parviflorus Raf.

Broomsedge Andropogoi virginicus L.

Broomweed Xanthocephalum, dracunculoides(DC.) Shinners

Broomweed Xanthocephalum texanum (DC.)Shinners

Brownseed paspalum. Paspalum plicatulum Michx.

Browntop panic grass Panicum fasciculatum Sw.

Buckthorn Plantago aristata Michx.

Buffalo bur Solanum rostratum Dun.

Buffalo gourd Cucurbita foetidissima H.B.K.

Buffalo grass Buchloe dactyloides (Nutt.)Engeim.

Bull-nettle Cnidoscolus texanus

Bull-thistle Cirsium horridulum, Michx.

Bulrush Scirpus koilolepis (Steud.) Gl.

Bur-clover Medcago lalmrha var.______s (Benth.) Shinners

Burhead Echinodorus cordifolius(L.) Griseb

Burhead Echiriodorus rostratus(Nutt.) TEn-gI7m

Burmuda grass Cynodon Dactylon (L.) Pers.-

Butter-and-eggs Linaria vulgaris Mill.3

224

Appendix 1. Continued


Buttercup Ranunculus abortivus L.

Buttercup Ranunculus carolinianus DC.

Buttercup Ranunculus pusillus Poir.

Butterfly pea Centrosema virginianum (.ButtrflyweedBenth.

ButtrflyweedAsciepias tuberosa L.

*Butterweed Senecio glabellus Poir.

Button clover Medicago orbicularis (L.)WaFrai.

Button weed Diodia virginiana L.

Camphor-weed Pluchea camphorata (L.) DC.

Canada wild-rye Elymus canadensis L.

Canary grass Phalaris canariensis L.

Canary grass Phalaris caroliniana Walt.

Cardinal flower Lobelia cardinalis L. var.cardinalis

Carolina clover Trifolium carolinianum Michx.

Carolina geranium Geranium carolinianum L.

Carolina horse-nettle Solanum carolinense L.

Carolina modiola Modiola caroliniana (L.) G.Don.

Carolina sedge Carex caroliniana Schwein.

Carpet grass Axonopus affinis Chase

Catchfly grass Leersia lenticularis Michx.

Catchweed bedstraw Galium Aparine L.

225

A~ppend(ix I .Continued. 1

'Common namie Scientific name

Cat-tail Typha domingensis Pers.

Chaetopappa Cheoap . asteroides(Nui7t.) DC.

Chain fern Lorinseria areolata (L.)Pre si.

Chasmanthium Chasmanthium laxum (L.)Yates

Chasmanthium Chasmanthium sessiliflorum(Poir.) Yates

Chervil Chaerophyllum TainturieriHook. var Tainturieri

Chicken spike Sphenoclea zeylanica Gaert.

Chickweed Cerastium brachygodum

Chickweed Cerastium glomeratum Thuill.

Christmas tern Polystichum acrostichoides(Michx.) Schott

Cinnamon fern Osmunda cinnamomea L.

Clammy groundcherry Physalis heterophylla Nes

Clammy-weed Polanisia erosa (Nutt.)tis sugs-P eros a

Clasping Venus' Triodanis perfoliata (L.)looking glass Nieuw.

Climbing dogbane Trachelospermum dif forms Gray

Climbing fern .L.ygodium Japonicum (Thurgb.) Sw.I

Climbing hemp-weed Mikania scandens (L.) Wilid.3

7



Coast sandbur Cenchrus incertus M. A.Curtis

Cocklebur Xanthium strumarium L.

Common cat-tail Typha latifolia L.

Common chickweed Stellaria media (L.) Cyr.

Common dandelion Taraxacum officinaleWiggers

Common green-briar Smilax rotundifolia L.

Common horehound Marrubium vulgare L.

Common mouse ear Cerastium vulgatum L.

Common mullein Verbascum Thapsus L.

Common plantain Plantago Major L.

Common self-heal Prunella vulgaris L.

Common sunflower Helianthus annuus L.

Common yarrow Achillea millefolium L.

Cone-flower Rudbeckia hirta L.

Cone-spur bladderwort Utricularia gibba L.

Coral bean Erythrina herbacea L.

Coreopsis Coreopsis cardaminaefolia(DC.) Nutt.

Cotton thistle Onopordum Acanthium L.

Cowpen daisy Verbesina enceloides (Cav.)GrayI,

Ik

227


Common nane Scientific name

Creeping bush clover Lespedeza repens (L.) B~art.

Creeping rush Juncus repens Michx.

Creeping spot flower Spilanthes americana. var.repens (Walt.) A.H. Moore

Creeping water primrose Ludwigia peploides (H.B.K.)Raven subsp. peploides

Croton Croton glandulosus L.

Croton Croton Lindheimerianus Muell.

Crowfoot sedge Carex crus-corvi Kunze

Crow poison Nothoscordum bivalve (L.)

Britt.

Cudweed Gnaphalium falcatum Lam.

Cudweed Gnaphalium pensilvanicuiWilld.

Cupgrass Eriochloa sericea (Scheele)Monro.

Curly-cup gumweed Grindelia squarrosa, (Pursh.)Dun. var. squarrosa

Cut-leaved evening Oenothera laciniata Hill.primrose

Cylindric-fruited Ludwigia glandulosa Walt.1 udwi gi a_ __t

Daisy fleabane Erigeron annus (L.) Pers.

Dakota vervain Verbena bipinnatifida Nutt.j

Dayflower Commelina cornmunis L.

Dayflower Cornhelina erecta L.I

228

* Appendix 1. Continued.


Dayflower Commelina erecta var.J Deamiana Fern.

Deer pea vetch Vicia ludoviciana Nutt.

Deer vetch Lotus Purshianus (Benth.)Clem. & Clem.

Desert Christmas cactus Opuntia leptocaulis DC.

Dichanthium Dichanthium. annulatum. Stapf

*Dicliptera Diclptera brachiata

Ditch stonecrop Penthorum sedoides L.

Dock Rumex chrysocarpus Moris

Dodder Cuscuta compacta Juss.

Dognettle Urtica urens L.

Downy chess Broinus tectorum L.

Downy ground cherry Physalis gubesces var.

*Downy milkpea Galactia volubilis (L.)Britt.

Dracopis Dracopis amplexicaulis(Vahi) Cass.

Drummond phlox Phlox Drummondii Hook.

Drummnond wax-mallow Malvaviscus arboreus var.Drummondii T G.) Schery

Duck potato Sagittaria latifolia Wilid.

Dwarf dandelion Krigia gracilis (DC.) Shinners

229



Dwarf dandelion Krigia virginica (L.) Wilid.

Dwarf spikerush Eleocharis parvula (R. & S.)Link

Dye bedstraw Galium tinctorium L.

Ebony spleenwort Asplenium platyneuron (L.)D. C. Eat.

Echinochloa Echinochloa Walteri (Pursh)Hel1ler

Eclipta Eclipta alba (L.) Hassk.

Elephant' s-foot Elephantopus carolinianusRaeusch.

Elephant's-foot Elephantopus tomentosus L.

Engelmann daisy Engelmannia pinnatifida Nutt.

Eryngo Eryngium Hookeri Waip.

Eryngo Eryngium integrifolium Walt.

Evening primrose Oenothera heterophylla Spach.

Eyebane Euphorbia nutans Lag.

Fall panic Panicum dichotomiflorum Michx.

Fall witchgrass Leptoloma cognatum (Schult.)Chase

False dandelion Pyrrhogap us carolinianus(Walt.) DC.

False dandelion Pyrrhopappus multicaulis DC.3

False-gromwell Onosmodiwn occidentale Mack.

False pimpernel Lindernia anagallidea (Michx.)

Penn.

23J

Appendix 1. continued


False ragweed Parthenium Hysterophorus L.

Fewf lower tickclover Desmadium pauciflorum(Nutt.) DC.

Fiddle dock Rumex pulcher L.

Field pansy Viola rafinesguii Greene

Fimbristylis Fimbristylis autunalis(L.) R. & S.

Finger dogshade Cynosciadium digitatu DC.

Finger lionsheart Physostegia Digitalis Small

Fireweed Erechtites hieracifolia var.intermedia Fern.

Flat sedge Cyperus acuminatus T. & G.

Flat sedge Cyperus brevifolius (Rottb.)Hassk.

Flat sedge Cyperus erythrorhizos Muhl.

Flat sedge Cyperus globulosus Aubi.

Flat sedge Cyperus Haspan L.

Flat sedge Cyperus odoratus L.

Flat sedge Cyperus ovularis (Michx.) Torr.

Flat sedge Cyperus pseudovegatus Steud.

Flat sedge Cyperus polystachyos var.texensis (Torr.) Fern.

Flat sedge CYRerus retrofractus (L.)T. & G.

Flat sedge CYperus setigerus T. & H.

231 1

Appendix 1. Continued. i


Flat sedge Cyperus strigosus L.

Flat sedge Cyperus surinamensis Rottb.

Flax Linum ri idum Pursh var.Berlandieri (Hook.) T. & G.

Fleabane Erigeron tenuis T. & G.

Flower-of-an-hour Hibiscus trionum L.

Forget-me-not Myosotis verna Nutt. JForked blue curls Trichostema dichotomum L.

Forked rush Juncus dichotomus Ell.

Fourspike heliotrope Heliotropium procumbens Mill.

Fox sedge Carex vulpinoidea Michx.

Foxtail Alopecurus carolinianus Walt.

Fragile fern Cystopteris fragilis (L.)

Bernh.

Fragrant cudweed Gnaphalium obtusifolium L.

Frog-fruit Phyla nodiflora (L.) Greene

Frostweed Verbesina virginica L.

Franks sedge Carex Frankii Kunth. IFringed signalgrass Brachiaria ciliatissima.

(Buckl.) Chase IGaura Gaura filiformis Small

Gay feather Liatris elegans (Walt.) Michx. IGiant ragweed Ambrosia trifida L. I

I

232



Giant reed Arundo Donax L.

Globe-berry Ibervillea Lindheimeri

(Gray) Greene

Golden aster Heterotheca latifolia Buckl.

Golden aster leterotheca pilosa (Nutt.)Shinners

Golden groundsel Senecio obovatus Muhl.

Goldenrod Solidago altissima L.

Goldenrod Solidago nitida T. & G.

Goldenrod Solidago nemoralis Ait.

Glassleaf rush Juncus marginatus Rostk.

Gray vervain Verbena canescens H.B.K.

Green amaranth Amaranthus viridis L.

Green dragon Arisaema Dracontium (L.)Schott.

Green-eyes Berlandiera pumila (Michx.)Nutt.

Green gerardia Agalinis viridis (Small)Penn.

Green parrot's feathers Myriophyllum pinnatum(Walt.) B.S.P.

Green-thread Thelesperma flavodiscum

(Shinners) B. L. Turner

Gronrwell Lithospermum incisum Lehm.

Gromwell Lithospermum tuberosum A. DC.

I'

233

Appendix 1. Conti.nue~d.5


Groud chrry hysais agulaa iGround cherry Physalis angulata va..

pendula (Rdb.) Waterfall

Ground cherry Physalis virginiana Mill.

Groundsel Senecio iMparipinnatus Klatt

Gulf croton Croton punctatus Jacq.]

Gulf vervain Verbena xutha Lehm. '

Gummy lovegrass Eragrostis curtipedicellataBuck 1.

Gumweed Grindelia microcephala DC.

Hairy bedstraw Galium pilosun Ait.

Hairy four-o-clock Mirabilis hirsuta (Pursh)MacM.

Hairyseed paspalum Paspalum pubiflorun Fourn.

Hairy bush clover Lespedeza hirsuta (L.) Hornen.

Hairy grama Bouteloua hirsuta Lag.

Hairy vetch Vicia villosa, Ruth.

ilammerwort Parietaria pensylvanica Muhl.

Hawk's-beard Crepis capillaris (L.) Wallr.

Heartleaf nettle Urtica chamaedryoides Pursh

fleartleaf nettle Urtica chamaedryoides var.Runyonii CorrellJ

Heart sorrel Rumex hastatulus Ell.

Hedge-parsley Torilus arvensis (Huds.) Link.

234



Hoary tickclover Desmodium canescens (L.) DC.

Hooked pepperwort Marsilea uncinata A. Br.

Hooker eryngo Eryngium Hookeri Waip.

Horned rush Rhychs ora corniculataMn Gray

Horsemint Monarda citriodora Cerv.

*Horsetail Eguisetum hyemale var.affine TEn gemi.) A.A. Eat.

Horse-weed Coriyza canadensis (L.) Cronq.

*Hummock sedge Carex Joori Bailey

Hydrolea Hydrolea ovata ChoisyIllinois budelwr Desmanthus illinoiensis

(Michx.) MacM.

India heliotrope Heliotropium indicum L.

Indian blanket Gaillardia aestivalis (Walt.)Rock

Indian blanket Gaillardia puichella Foug.

Indian chickweed Mollugo verticillata L.

Indian grass So~astrum avenaceum(Mihx. iNa h -

Indian hemp Apocynum cannabinum L.

Indian strawberry Duchesnea indica (Andrz.)Focke

Inland sea oats Chasmanthium latifolium(Michx.) Yates

23T)1


Coimmon name Scientific name

Inland rush Juncus interior Wieg.

Intermediate lions Physostegia intermedia 1heart (Nutt.) Engeim. & Gray

Ironweed Vernonia missurica Raf.

Ironweed Vernonia texana (Gray) Small

Ivy treebine Cissus incisa (Nutt.)Des Moul.

Japanese bushclover Lespedeza striata (Thunb.)H. & A.

Japanese chess Bromus japonicus L.

Jimson-weed Datura Stramonium L.Johnson grass Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers.

JointtailManisuris rugosa (Nutt.)Jointtail0. Ktze.

Jumpseed Polygonum virginianum L.

Jungle-rice Echinochloa colonum (L.) Link

Juniper leaf Polypremum procumbens L.

Kallstroemia Kallstroemia parviflora Mort.

Knotted hedge-parsley Torilis nodosa (L.) Gaert.

Knotweed Polygonum cristatui Engelm.

Lance-leaved water- Justicia lanceolata (Chapm.)willow Small-

Late-f lowering Equpatorium serotinum Hichx.thoroughwort

Leaf-flower Phyl lanthus polygonoidesSpreng.

XI

236

* Appendix 1. Continued.


Leaf-flower Phyllanthus pudens Wheeler

Leather-flower Clematis Pitcheri T. & G.

Leathery rush Juncus coriaceus Mack.

Leavenworth vetch Vicia. Leavenworthii T. & G.

Leersia Leersia hexandra Sw.

Lettuce Lactuca floridana (L.)Gaertn.

Lettuce Lactuca ludoviciana (Nutt.)Ridd.

Leucospora Lecspr multifida

(Michx.) Nutt.Limnosciadium Limnosciadium pinnatum

(DC.) Math. & Const.

Little barley Hordeun pusillum Nutt.

Little bluestem Shzachyrium scoprium,

7Little burclover Medicago minima (L.) L.

Little mallow Malva parviflora L.

Little quaking grass Briza minor L.

Lizard's tail Saururus cernuus L.

Loosestrife Lythrum lanceolatum Eli.

*Lopseed Phym leptostachya L.

*Lovegrass Eragrostis hirsuta (Michx.)Nees.

2371

\PPC,:Ik i.X I CL'Oinued I


Lovegrass Eragrostis hypnoides (Lam.)B.S.P.J

Lovegrass Eragrostis spectabilis

Low opclver(Pursh.) Steud.

Low hocloverTrifoliuM campestre Sturm.

Low poppy-mallow Callirhoe involucrata(Torr) GrayI

Lyre-leaf sage Salvia lyrata L.

Maidencane Panicum hemitomon Schult.

Maidenhair fern Adiantum Capillus-Veneris L.

Marigold dogwood Dyssodia tagetoides T. & G.

Marijuana Cannabis sativa L.

Mlarsh-elder Iva angustifolia DC.

Marsh-elder Iva annua L.

Marsh-f leabane Pluchea purpurascens (Sw.)DC.

Marsh purslane Ludwigia palustris (L.) Ell. -

Maryland senna Cassia marilandica L.

Mauchia Bradburia hirtella T. & G.

Maximilian sunflower Helianthus Maximiliani Schrad.

Mayapple Podophyllum pellatui L.

fayweed Anthemis Cotula L.I

Meadow beauty Rhexia mariana L.

Meadow beauty Rhexia petiolata Walt.3

238


Cormion name Scientific name

Melonette Melothria pendula L.

Nexican hat Ratibida columnaris (Sims)D. Don.

Milk-vetch Astragalus NuttallianusA. DC.

Milkweed Asciepias obovata Eli.

Milkweed Asciepias rubra L.

Milkweed Asciepias viridiflora Raf.

Missouri violet Viola missouriensis Greene

Mist-flower Eupatorium. coelestinum L.

Mock bishop's-weed Ptilimnium, capillaceum

(Michx.) Raf.

Mock pennyroyal Hedeoma Drumnxondii Benth.

Mock pennyroyal Hedeoma hispidum. Pursh

Monkey-flower Mimulus alatus Ait.

Morning glory Ipomea lacunosa L.

Morning glory Ipomea purpurea (L.) Roth

Morning glory Ipomea trichocarpa Ell.

Muhlenburg sedge Carex Muhlenbergii Schkuhr.

Muhly Mulnbri brachyphylla

Mullein Verbascum Thapsus L.

Nama Nama hispidum Gray

2 33



Niarrow cell cornsalad Valerianella stenocarpa(Engeim.) Krok

Narrow-leaved vetch Vicia angustifolia L.

Narrow plumegrass Erianthus strictus Baldw.

Nettle Urtica chamaedryoides Pursh.

Nimblewill muhly Muhlenbergia SchreberiIJ. F. Gmel.

Northern crabgrass Digitaria sanguinalis (L.)Scop.

Northern frog fruit Phyla lanceolata (Michx.)Greene

Noseburn Tragia cordata Michx.

Noseburn Tragia ramosa Torr.

Nutgrass C.Yperus rotundus L.

Oats Avena fatua L.

old field toad-flax Linaria canadensis (L.) Dum.

Old plainsman Hyrnenopappus ScabiosaeusL. Her.

OplisenusOplismenus hirtellus subap.Oplismenussetarius (Lam.) Mez

Ox-eye Heipi helianthoides(L)Sweetj

Ozark grass Limnodea arkansana (Nutt.)L. H. DeweyI

Palafoxia Palafoxia Reverchonji(Bush) Cory

Pulafoxia Palafoxia rosea (Bush) Cory

240



Pale dock Rumex altissimus Wood

Pale-seeded plantain Plantago virginica L.

Panic grass Panicum anceps Michx.

Panic grass Panicum brachyanthum Steud.

Panic grass Panicum dichotomum L.

Panic grass Panicum dilatatum Poir.

Panic grass Panicum geminatum Michx.

Panic grass Panicum hians Ell.

Panic grass Panicum laxiflorum Lam.

Panic grass Panicum Lindheimeri Nash

Panic grass Panicum malacophyllum Nash

Panic grass Panicum oligosanthes Schult.

Panic grass Panicum Ravenelii Scribn.& Merr.

Panic grass Panicum rigidulum Nees

Panic grass Panicum verrucosum Muhl.

Panicled tickclover Desmodium paniculatum(L.) DC.

Partridge pea Cassia fasciculata Michx.

Partridge pea Cassia fasciculata var.rostrata (Woot. & Standl.)B. L. Turner

Paspalum Paspalum acuminatum Raddi

24 11



Paspalum Faspalum floridanum %Iichx.

Paspalun Paspalum fluitans (Eli.) Kunth

Paspalun Paspalum laeve Michx.

Paspalum Paspalum Lange (Fourn.) Nash

Paspalum Paspa-lum praecox Walt.J

Peanut clover Trifolium amphianthum T. &G.

Pencil-flower Stloant:hes bificra (L.)

Peppergrass Lepidium virginicum L.

Perennial sweetpea Lathyrus latifolius, L. -

Persian clover Trifolium resupinatui L. IPersicaria Persicaria densiflora (Meisn.)

Holdenke

Persicaria Persicaria setacea (Baldw.)Small~

Phacelia Phacelia hirsuta Nutt.

Phlox Phlox pilosa L. 1Pickerel-weed Pontederia cordata L.

Pin-weed Lechea mucronata Raf.

Pin-weed Lechea san-sabeana (Bucki.)J009~g

Pin-weed Lechea tenuifolia Michx.

Pink srnartweed Persicaria bicornis (Raf.)Nieuw

-Mama"

242



Pipewort Eriocaulon decangulare L.

Pitseed goosefoot Chenopodium Berlandieri Moq.

Plains wild indigo Baptisia leucophaea Nutt.

Plantain Plantago Helleri Small

Plantain Plantago patagonica var.gaphaloides (Nutt.) Gray

Plantain Plantago Wrightiana Dcne.

Poke weed Phytolacca americana L.

Polygala Polygala cruciata L.

Polygala Polygala ramosa Ell.

Polypremum Polypremum procumbens L.

Pony-foot Dichondra carolinensis Michx.

Poor Joe Diodia teres Walt.

Potato-dandelion Krigia Dandelion (L.) Nutt.

Poverty oatgrass Danthonia spicata (L.) 9eauv.

Powder puff Mimosa strigillosa T. & G.

Prairie Agalinis Agalinis heterophylla(Nutt.) Small

Prairie bush clover Lespedeza irolacea (L.) Pers.

Prairie buttercup Ranunculus fascicularis Muhl.

Prairie clover Petalostemum candidum...(V1113.-k ichx.

fPrairie clover Petalotmum lherimum

( l ,*

243 k

Appendix 1. Continued. l


Prairie cupgrass Eriochloa contracta Ilitchc.

Prairie ground cherry Physalis pumila Nutt. IPrairie-parsley Polytaenia Nuttallii DC. jPrairie tea Croton mononthogynus Michx.

Prairie three-awn Aristida oligantha Michx.

Prairie wedgescale Sphenopholis obtusata(Michx.) Scribn.

Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola L.

Prickly mallow Sida spinosa L. I.Prickly poppy Argemone polyanthemos

(Fedde) G. Ownbey

Primrose-willow Ludwigia decurrens Walt.

Prionopsis Prionopsis ciliata (Nutt.)

Nutt.

Prostrate lawnflower Calyptocarpus vialis Less. IPuncture vine Tribulus terrestris L.

Purple amaranth Amaranthus cruentus L. 1Purple cudweed Gnaphalium purpureum L. jPurple meadow-rue Thalictrum Dasycarpum

Fisch. & All. ,Purple sandgrass Triplasis purpurea

Pupetrean(Walt.) Chapm.[

Purple three-awn Aristida purpurea Nutt.

Purpletop Tridens flavus (L.) Hitchc.

II1..'

244



Purslane speedwell Veronica peregrina L.

Pygmy-flowered vetch Vicia minutiflora Dietr.

Queen's delight Stillingia sylvatica L.

Rabbit foot grass Polypogon monspeliensis(Lt) esf.

Rain-lily Cooperia Drummondii Herb.

Rattle-box Ludwigia alternifolia L.

Rattlesnake-weed Daucus pusillus Michx.

Red lovegrass Eragrostis oxylepis(Tort.) Torr.

Red-seeded plantain Plantago rhodosperma Dcne.Red sprangle top Leptochloa Filiformis

(Lam.) Beauv.

Redtop bentgrass Agrostis stolonifera L.

Reflexed sedge Carex retroflexa Michx.

Rescue grass Bromus unioloides H.B.K.

Rice cutgrass Leersia oryzoides (L.) Sw.

Roadside gaura Gaura suffulta subsp.suffulta Gray

Rocket larkspur Delphinium Ajacis L.

Rockrose Helianthemum rosmarinifoliumPursh

Rose gentian Sabatia campestris Nutt.

JRose vervain Verbena canadensis (L.)Br tt

.4

2451


Common name Scientific name3

Rosin-weed silphium, Simgonii Greenevar. ________ Perry

R~ough buttonweed Diodia teres Walt.

Roundhead rush Juncus validus Coy.

Roundleaf scurfpea Psoralea rhombifolia T. & G.J

Royal fern Osmunda reai var.§pectabilis (Willd.) Gray

Ruellia Ruellia caroliniensis(Walt.) Steud.

Ruellia Ruellia humilis var.longiflora (Gray) Fern.

Ruellia Ruellia nudiflora (Gray)1*~ n_ __

Rush Juncus nodatus Coy.f

Rush Juncus Torreyi Coy.

Rush-foil Crotonopsis linearis Michx. IRyegrass Lolium perenne L.

Sacciolepis Sacciolepis striata (L.)Nash

Salsify Tragopogon porrifolius L.

Sand dropseed Sporobolus cryptandrus.

Sandills amiaranth Amaranthus arenicola

Sand spilcerush Eleocharis montevidensisKunth.I

1. 246



Sandwort Arenaria patula Michx.

Scaleseed Sperznolepis inermnis (DC.)

Math. & Const.

.1.Scarlet pea Indigofera miniata Ort.

Scarlet pimpernel Anagallis arvensis L.

Scarlet rose-mallow Hibiscus militaris Cay.

Scarlet spiderling Boerhaavia coccinea mill.

Scorpion grass Myosotis macrosperma Englem.

IScrambled eggs Corydalis aurea Wilid..

Scrambled eggs Coyai micranthaI (Eiigem.) Gray

Scratch-daisy Cr~tlon divaricatum(Nutt.) )af

Scurfy pea Psoralea tenuiflora Pursh

* Sedge Carex albolutescens Schwein.

Sedge Carex amphibola Steud.

* Sedge Carex atlantica Bailey

ISedge Carex blanda Dew.Sedge Carex brittoniana Bailey

Sedge Carex Buuhii Mack.

Sedge Carex caphalophora Muhl.

ISedge Carex crebriflora Vieg.

Sedge Carex cherokeensis Schvein.

_40

247

Appendix 1. Continued.I


Sedge Carex Davisii Schwein.&

Torr.j

Sedge Carex Emoryi Dew.

Sedge Carex flaccosperma, Dew.J

Sedge Carex hyalinolepis Steud.

Sedge Carex lurida Wahl.

Sedge Carex reniforinis (Bailey)

_Smal!Sedge Carex retroflexa Muhl.

Seedbox Ludwigia peploides (H.B.K.)Raven

Sensitive briar Schrankia Roemeriana I(Schee)i Blank.

Sensitive fern Onoclea sensibilis L.

Sesbania. Sesbania macrocarpa M4uhl.

Sessile-leaf tickclover Desmodium sessilifolium(Torr.) T. & G.

Setaria Setaria geniculata (Lam.) IBeauv.

Shade betony Stachys crenata Raf.

Shade mud-flower Micranthemum umbrosum(Walt.),BlakeI

Shepherd's purse Capsella Bursa-Pastoris(L)Meaic.

Shore milkweed Asciepias Perennis Walt.

Short ragweed Ambrosia arteminjifolia L.I

2 4 P


*Common name Scientific name

Shortstem iris Iris brevicaulis Raf.

*Showy primrose Oenothera speciosa Nutt.

Sibara Sibara virginica (L.) Roll.

Sicklepod Cassia obtusifolia L.

Sida Sida rhozubifolia L.

Side-oats grama. Bouteloua curipndula(RMh.1 -Torr

Silver bluestem Bothriochloa Saccharoides(Sw.) RZydl.

Silverleaf nightshade Solanum elaeagnifoliu Cay.

Singletary pea Lathyrus hirsutus L.

Six-weeks fescue Vulpia octoflora (Walt.)Rydb.

Skullcap Scutellaria cardiophyllaEngelm. & Gray

Sleepy-daisy Xanthisma texanum DC. var.Drummonalvl(T. & G.) Gray

Slender bush clover Lespedeza virginica (L.)Britt.

Slender rush Juncus tenuis Willd.

Slick-seed bean Stostles leiosm

Slimleaf scurfpea Psoralsa tenuiflora Pursh

Slimlobe celery Aiule toplu (Pers.).V117l

Slimlobe poppy-mallow Callirho. involucrata var.lineariloba (T. & G.)Gray

249J


C:ommon name Scientific name

Slimpod rush Juncus difussimus Bucki.

Small-flowered vervain Verbena bipinnatifida Nutt.

Small Venus' looking Triodanis biflora (R. P.glass Gren

Smartweed Persicaria coccinea (Muhl.)Green

Smartweed Persicaria hydropiperoides(Michx.) Small

Smartweed Persicaria lapathifolia(L.) Small

Smartweed Persicaria punctata (Ell.)Small

Smooth buttonweed Spermacoce glabra Michx.

Smooth hydrolea Hydrolea uniflora Raf.

Smutgrass Sporobolus indicus (L.)R. Br.j

Snake-cotton Froelichia Braunii Standi.

Snake-cotton Froelichia Drunimondii Moq.

Snake-cotton Froelichia floridana(Nutt.) MOq.

Sneezeweed Helenium autumnale L.

Sneezeweed Helenium microcephalum DC.

Sneezeweed Helenium quadridentatumLabill.

Snow-on-the-prairie Euphorbia bicolor Engelm.&Gray

250



Snoutbean Rhvnchosia latifolia(Nutt.) T. & G.

Soft rush Juncus effusus var. solutus

Fern7 ilig.

Softstem bulrush Scirpus validus Vahl.

Sorghum Sorghum bicolor (L.)Moench.

Sourciover Melilotus indicus (L.) All.

Southern blue-flag Iris virginica L.

Southern crabgrass Digitaria adscendens(H. B. K.) Henr.

Southern wildrice Zizaniopsis miliacea(Nichx.) Doell. & Asch.

Southernshield fern Theyperis Kunthii(Dev.) orton

Southwest bedstraw Galium virgatum Nutt.

Sow thistle Sonchus asper (L.) Hill

Sow thistle Sonchus oleraceus L.

Spanish moss Tillandsia usneoides (L.) L.

Spanish-needles Bidens bipinnata L.

Spiderwort Commelina virginica L.

Spiderwort Tradescantia hirsutifloraBush

Spiderwort Tradescantia ohioensis Rf

Spiderwort Tradescantia Reverchoni

Bus

251j


Common name Scientific name3

Spikerush Eleocharis acicularis (L.)R. & S.

Spikerush Eleocharis austrotexanaM. C. Johnst.

Spikerush Eleocharis macrostachyaBritt.1

Spikerush Eleocharis tortilis(Link.) Schult.

Spiny pigweed Amaranthus spinosus L.

Splitbeard bluestem. Andropogon ternarius Michx.

Spotted beebaim Monarda punctata L.

Spotted bur-clover Medicagoi arabica (L.) Huds.

Spreading dayf lower Commelina diffusa Burm. F.

Spring bentgrass Agrostis hyemalis (Walt.)B. S. P.

Spring coral-root Corallorhiza WisterianaiComad.

Spring ladies' tresses Spiranthes vernalis IEngelm. & Gray

Spurge Euphorbia dentata !4ichx.

Spurge Euphorbia maculata L.

Spurge Euphorbia missurica Raf.I

Spurge Euphorbia prostrata Ait.3

Spurge Euphorbia serpens H. B. K.

Spurge Euphcrbia spathulata Lam.3

252



Squarestem spikerush Eleocharis guadrangulata(Michx.) R. & S.

Stenosiphon Stensihon inifolius

Sticky hedge-hyssop, Gratiola, brevifolia Raf.

Stinking-fleabane Pluchea foetida (L.) DC.

St. John's-wort Hypericum mutilum L.

St. John's-wort Hypericum punctatum Lam.

St. John's-wort Hypericum Walteri, Gmel.

Sucker flax Linum medium (Planch.) Britt.var. texanwo (Planch.)Fern.

Sugarcane plumegrass Erianthus gigaziteus (Walt.)

Sunflower Heliarithus angustifolius L.

Sunflower Helianthus hirsutu5 Raf.

Sunflower Helianthus debilis mutt.

*Sunflower Helianthus grosse-serratusMartens'

Swampdock Rumex verticillatus L.

Sweet goldenrod Solidago odora Ait.

Tall bush clover Lespedeza Stuevei Mutt.

Tall dropseed Sporobolus asper (Michx.)

Tallow weed Plantago Hookeriana Fisch.I & Iey.

2531



Texas aster Aster texanus Burgess

Texas bedstraw Galium texense Gray

Texas bluebonnet Lupinus texensis Hook.J

Texas frog-fruit Phyla incisa Small

Texas geranium Geranium texanum (Tre 1.)1Heller

Texas gourd Cucurbita texana Gray

Texas grana Bouteloua rgdiseta(S9teud.) iIci&

Texas groundsel Senecio ampullaceus Hook.

Texas millet Panicum texanum Buckl.

Texas paintbrush Castilleja indivisa Engelm.

Texas pink-root Spigelia texana (T. & G.)A. DC.

Texas speargrass Stipa leucotricha Trin.&Rupr.

Texas thistle Cirsium texanum Buckl.

Texas toad-flax Linaria texana Scheele

Texas vervain Verbena Halei Small ITexas yellow-star Lindheimera texana Gray&

Engelm. iThin paspalum Paspalum setaceum !ichx.I

Thoroughwort Eupatorium incarnatum Walt.

Thoroughvort Eupatorium perfoliatum L.

254



Thoroughwort Eu atorium rotundifolium L.

Three-awn grass Aristida desmantha Trin. &Rupr.

Three-awn grass Aristida lanosa Eli.

Three-awn grass Aristida longespica Poir.

Three-seeded Mercury Acalypha gracilens Gray

Three-seeded Mercury Acalypha, ostryaefolia. Ridd.

Three-seeded Mercury Acalypha rhomboidea Raf.

Three-seeded Mercury Acalypha, virginica L.

Tick-seed Coreopsis basalis (Otto.Dietr.) Blake

Tick-seed Coreopsis nuecensis Hieller

Tick-seed Coreopsis tinctoria Nutt.

Toad-rush Juncus bufonius L.

Toothcup Ammannia coccinea Rottb.

Toothcup Rotala ramosior (L.) Koehne

Tomato Lycopersicon esculentwn Mill.

Trailing bush clover Lespedeza procumbens Michx.

Trailing ratany Krameria lanceolata Torr.

Trepocarpus Trepocarpus Aethusas Nutt.

Tridens Tridens strictus (Nutt.) Nash

Tropical crabgrass Di-gitaria diversiflora Swall.

Tuckahoe Peltandra virginica (L.) ut

255

Appenidix~ 1. Continuo d.j


Tuirblegrass Schedonnardus paniculatusNutt.

Turnsole Heliotropium tenellum (Nutt.)Torr.

Two-eyed berry Mitchella repens L.

Two-flower melic Melica mutica, Walt.

Umbrella-grass Fuirena simplex Vahi

Umbrella-grass Fuirena squarrosa Michx.J

Uruguay water primrose Ludwigia uruguayensis (Camb.)Hara

Vahl Fimbry Fimbristylis Vahlii (Lam.)

VaseygrassLink

VsygasPaslpalui Urvillei Steud.

Velvet-leaf gaura Gaura parviflora Hook.

Venus' looking glass Triodanis texana, McVaugh

Vetch Vicia leavenworthii T. & G.j

Vine mesquite Panicum obtusum H.B.K. T

Violet Viola esculenta Ell. iViolet Viola Langloisii Greene

Violet Viola Pratincola Greene

Violet wood-sorrel Oxalis violacea L.

Virginia bugle-weed Lycopus virginicus L.

Virginia wild rye Elymus virginicus L.

Warty Euphorbia EuPhorbia spathulata Lam.

256



Water clover Marsilea mucronata A. Br.

Water-feather 1Myriophyllum brasilienseCamb.

Water-horehound Lycopus rubellus Moench.

Water-hyssop Bacopa Monnieri (L.) Wettst.

Water-milfoil lMyriophyllum verticillatu L.

Water-pennywort Hydrocotyle umbellata L.

Water-pennywort Hydrocotyle vertici ilataThuib.

Water-primrose Ludwigia leptocarpa (Nutt.)Hara

Wedgegrass Sphenopholis filiformis(Chapm.) Htchc

*Wedgegrass Shnpois intermedia(Rydb.)Rydb

Wedgegrass Sphenoholis longiflora(Vasey Hjtchc.

*Weedy dandelion Krigia oppositifol-ia Raft

weeping lovegrass Eragrostis curvula (Schrad.)Nes

Western horse-nettle Solaium dimidiatum Raf.

Western ragweed Ambrosia Psilostachya DC.

Wheat Triticu aesti~rum L.

Whip-grass Scieria triglomerata ZNichx.

White avens Geum canadense Jacq.

White clover Trifolium repens L.

2573

Appondix 1. Continued.


White grass Leersia virginica Wilid.I

White root rush Juncus brachycarpus Engeim.3

*White sheath sedge Carex hyaline Boott

White sweet clover Melilotus albus Lam. 1White top daisy Erigeron strigosus, Wilid.

White tridens Tridens albescens (Vasey)Woot. & Stand.-

White vervain Verbena urticifolia L.

wild buckwheat Eriogonum longifolium Nutt.

Wild buckwheat Eriogonum multiflorum. Benth.

Wild four o'clock Mirabilis nyctaginea (Michx.) 1Wild indigo Baptisia Nuttalliana, SmallJ

Wild onion Allium canadense L.

Wild petunia Ruellia Corzoi Tharp & Barkl.

Wild petunia Ruellia Pedunculata Torr.

Wild petunia Ruellia strepens L. var.I.s trepen-s

Wild potato Ipomoea pandurata (L.) Mey.

windmill fingergrass Chloris verticillata Nutt.

*Wingseed Carex alata Torr.

Witchgrass Panicum capillare L.I

Winter vetch Vicia dasycarpa Ten.

Woods cornsalad Valerianella woodsianaI

--- -- -- -

258


iCommon name Scientific name

I Wood-sorrel Oxalis Dillenii Jacq.

Woolly croton Croton capitatus Michx.

Woolly rose-mallow Hibiscus lasiocarpos Car.

Woolly white Hymenopappus artemisiaefoliusDC.

Woolly white Hymenopappus teniufolius Pursh.

Wormseed Chenopodium ambrosioides L.

Yellow cow-lily Nuphar luteum subsp.macrophyllum (Small)~E. 0. Beal

Yellow Cress a sessilifora (Nutt.)Hitchc.

Yellow Dock Rumex crispus L.

Yellow-eyed grass Xyris iridifolia Chapm.

Yellow-eyed grass Xyris Jupicai Rich.

Yellow Nut grass Cyperus esculentus L.

Yellow-purr Neptunia lutea (LeavenW.)~Benth.

Yellow-spine Thistle Cirsium ochrocentrum Gray

I Yellow Sweet Clover Melilotus officinalis (L.)Lam.

.

i.~

4

259

Appendix 2. Partial checklist of shrub, tree, and woodyvine species within the Trinity River Basin includingannotation of rare and endangered species accordingto the Texas Organization for Endangered Species(1974) (indicated by *)


American basswood Tilia americana L.

American beautyberry Callicarpa americana L.

American elder Sambucus canadensis L.

American elm Ulmus americana L.

American holly Ilex opaca Ait.

American hop-hornbeam Ostrya virginiana (Mill.) K.Koch

* American starjanne Trachelosgirmum difforme(Walt.) Gray

Amorpha Amorpha paniculata T. & G.

Bald cypress Taxodium distichum (L.) Rich.

Bastard indigo Amorpha fruticosa L.

5 Bastard oak Quercus sinuata Walt.

Beech Fagus grandifolia Ehrh.

Bitter orange Citrus trifoliata L.

Bitternut hickory Carya cordiformis (Wang.) K.Koch

Black cherry Prunus serotina Ehrh.

Black gum Nyssa sylvatica Kanh.

Black hickory Carya texana Duckl.

Black locust Robinia pseudo-acecia L.

Black oak Quercus velutinaLam.

I I

2601



Black walnut Juglans nigra L.I

Black willow Salix nigra Marsh. 5Blackjack oak Quercus marilandica Muenchh.

Blue beech Carpinus caroliniana L.

Bottomiland post oak Quercus similis Ashe

Box elder Acer Negundo L.

Brazos hawthorne Crataegus brazoria Sarg.

Bristly green-brier Smilax hispida Muhl.

Buckthorn Rhamnus lanceolata Pursh

Buffalo-gourd Cucurbita foetidissimaB. K[Bur oak Quercus inacrocarpa Michx.

Burning bush Euonymus atropurpureus Jacq.

Bush palmetto (dwarfform) Sabal minor (Jacq.) Pers. i

*Bush palmetto(trunked form) Sabal, minor (Jacq.) Pers.[

Carolina ash Fraxinus caroliniana Mill.

Carolina basswood Tilia caroliniana Mill.

Catalpa Catalpa speciosa Warder

Cat-brier Smilax bona-nox L.

Cedar elm Umscrassifolia Nutt.I

Chaste lamb~-tree Vitex agnus-castus L.

Chestnut oak Quercus Prinus L.3

261

J Appendix 2. Continued.


Chickasaw plum Prunus angustifolia Marsh.

Chinaberry Melia azedarach L.

Chinese tallow tree Sapium sebiferum (L.) Roxb.

Cockspur hawthorn Crataegus crus-galli L.

Common buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis L.

Common green-brier Smilax rotundifolia L.

Coral-berry Symphoricarpos orbiculatus,. Moench.

Cow-itch Cissus incisa (Nutt.) Des

Moul.

Deciduous holly Ilex decidua Walt.

Dewberry-blackberry Rubus aboriginum Rydb.

Dewberry-blackberry Rubus apogaeus Bailey

Dewberry-blackberry Rubus saepescandens Bailey

Devil's-walking-stick Aralia spinosa L.

Dogwood Cornus racemosa Lam.

Downy hawthorn Crataegus mollis Scheele

Drooping elonette Melothria pendula L.

Drummond wax-mallow lalvaviscus arboreus var.Drummo-ndii (T. & G.) Schery

Eardrop vine Brunnichia ovata (Walt.)Shinners-

I Eastern cottonwood Populus deltoides Marsh.

I Eastern red cedar Juniperus virginiana L.

Sii

• I . II _II I _ 4

2623


Comon name Scientific name

Eve's necklace Sophora affinis T. &G.

Farkleberry Vaccinium arboreum Marsh.

Florida basswood Tilia floridana Small

Flowering dogwood Cornus florida L.

Forestiera Forestiera ligutrinalmichx.) Poir.

Fragrant sumac Rhus aromatica Ait.

Fringe-tree Chionanthus virginica L.

Frost grape Vitis riparia Michx. 1Giant cane Arundinaria gigae

(Walt.) Mhl

Green ash Fraxinus pensylvanica Marsh.

Green hawthorn Crataequs viridis L.

Gum bumelia Bumelia langiosa(MichxT oreHawthorn Crataequs glabriuscula Sarg.Heartleaf Apeopicoat Michx.

Hercules-club Zanthoxylum Clava-Ilerculis L. IHoney locust Gleditsia triacanthos L.

Honey mesquite Prosopis glandulosa Torr. IIndian cherry Rhazmus caroliniana Walt.

Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera Japonica Thunb.

Laurel oak Quercus laurifolia Michx.

j 263


- Conmon name Scientific name

Loblolly pine Pinus taeda L.

Maypop, passionflower Passiflora incarnata L.

Mexican plum Prunus uiexicana Wats. -

Milkvine Matelea gonocarpa (Walt.)39Einners

Mistletoe Phoradendron tomentosum(DC.) Gray

Mockernut hickory Carya tomentosa Nutt.

Mock-orange Styrax americana Lam.

Muscadine grape Vitis rotundifolia Michx.

Mustang grape Vitis mustangensis Bucki.

Netleaf hackberry Celtis reticulata Torr.

IO'possum-wood Halesia carolina L.

]Osage orange Maclura pomfera (Raf.)

Overcup, oak Quercus lyrata Walt.

Parsley hawthorn Crataegus Marshallii Eggi.

I Pasture haw Crataegus spathulata IMichz.

Pawpaw Asizuina. triloba (L.) Dun.

IPeach Prunus persica (L.) Batuch

Pecan Carya illinoinensis (Wang.)I K. Koch -Pepper vine Aipelopsis arborea (L.) Koshne

IPersimmnon Diospyros virginiana L

264 j

Appendix 2. Continued. I


Pigeon-berry Rivina humilis L.

Poison ivy Rhus toxicodendron L. VPossum-haw Viburnum nudum L.

Post oak Quercus stellata Wang.

Post oak grape Vitis lincecumii Buckl.

Prairie rose Rosa setigera Michx.

Privet Ligustrum spp.

Rattan vine Berchemia scandens (Hill)K. Koch j

Rattlebush Sesbania Drummondii (Rydb.)Cory

Red bay Persea borbonia (L.) Spreng.

Red grape Vitis palmata Vahl JRed maple Acer rubrum L.

Red mulberry Morus rubra L.

Red-berried moonseed Cocculus carolinus (L.) DC.

Redbud Cercis canadensis L.

Redroot Ceanothus herbaceus Raf. I,Retama Parkinsonia aculeata L.

River birch Detula nigra L.

Roosevelt weed Baccharis neglecta Britt.

Roughleaf dogwood Cornus Druunondii C. A. Hey.

Saltcedar Tamarix gallica L.

.1

. 265

Appendix 2. Continued


Sandjack oak Quercus incana Vartr.

Sassafras Sassafras albidum (Nutt.) Nees

Sea-myrtle Baccharis halimifolia L.

Shagbark hickory Carya ovata (Mill.) K. Koch

Shining sumac Rhus copallina L.

Shortleaf pine Pinus echinata Mill.

Shumard red oak Quercus Shumardii Buchl.

Skunk-bush Ptelea trifoliata L.

Slippery elm Ulmus rubra Muhl.

Smooth alder Alnus serrulata (Ait.) Willd.

Smooth sumac Rhus glabra L.

Snowdrop-tree Halesia diptera Ellis

Soap berry Sapindus Saponaria L.

Southern arrow-wood Viburnum dentatum L.

Southern blackhaw Viburnum rufidulum Raf.

Southern dewberry Rubus trivialis Michx.

Southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora L.

Southern red oak Quercus falcata Michx.

* Spicebush Lindera Benzoin (L.) Bl.

St. Andrew's Cross Ascyrum hypericoides L.

St. Peter's-wort Ancyrum stans Michx.

Strawberry-bush Euonymus americanus L.

~ A-.. . II- - -. i l II II

-D --- ~ .o

2663



Sugar maple Acer saccharum Marsh.

Summer grape Vitis aestivalis, Michx.

Swamp hickory Carya leiodermis Sarg.

Swamp privet Forestiera, acuminata, (Michx.)Poir.

Sweet grape Vitis cinerea Engeim.

Sweetgum Liguidambar Styraciflua L.

Sweet-leaf Smlcstinctoria (L.)L'Her.

Sycamore Platanus occidentalis L.

Tassel-white Itea virginica L.j

Texas nightshade Solanum triguetru Cay.

Texas red oak Quercus texana Bucki.j

Texas sugarberry Celtis laevigata Willd.

Trumpet honeysuckle Campis radicans (L.) Seem.

Tupelo Nyssa aguatica L.

Virgiaia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia(L.) -Pla-nc.

Water elm Paea auatc (Walt.)

Water hickory Cra aguatica (Michx. f.)

utt.

Water locust Gleditsia aquatica Marsh.

Water oak Quercus nir L.3

j 267


j Common name Scientific name

Wax-leaf ligustrum Ligustrum Quihoui Carr.

Wax myrtle Myrica cerifera L.

I White ash Fraxinus americana L.

White mulberry Morus alba L.

White oak Quercus alba Michx.

Willow oak Quercus Phellos L.

Winged elm Ulmus alata Michx.

Winter grape Vitis vulpina L.

7 Woolly dutchman's pipe Aristolochia tomentosa Sims

Yaupon Ilex vomitoria Ait.

Yellow passionflower Passiflora lutea L.

T

I

LIi' a

d

tx f/6 vegetative analysis of the …ad-a097 467 stephen f austin state univ nacogdoches tx f/6 6/3...

Documents