Advertisement

Microscale: Edaphic-Topoclimatic Differentiation (Sites)

  • Robert G. Bailey
Chapter

Abstract

We may subdivide landscape mosaics into smaller ecosystems called sites or microecosystems. At this point, we turn our attention to the component parts of these mosaics. These are minor in the sense of geographic scale but may play a decisive role in determining the land use.

Keywords

Site Type Canary Grass Drainage Class Tahoe Basin Lake Tahoe Basin 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Anderson, J.R.; Hardy, E.E.; Roach, J.T.; Witmer, R.E. 1976. A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data. Prof. Paper 964. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey. 28p.Google Scholar
  2. Austin, M.E. 1965. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States (exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii). Agric. Handbook 296. Washington, DC: USDA Soil Conservation Service. 82p. with separate map at 1:7,500,000.Google Scholar
  3. Barry, R.G. 1992. Mountain weather and climate. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. 402p.Google Scholar
  4. Branson, F.A.; Shown, L.M. 1990. Contrasts of vegetation, soils, microclimates, and geomorphic processes between north- and south-facing slopes on Green Mountain near Denver, Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 89-4094.Google Scholar
  5. Chen, J.; Saunders, S.C.; Crow, T.R.; Naiman, R.J.; et al. 1999. Microclimate in forest ecosystem and landscape ecology. Bioscience. 49: 288–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daubenmire, R. 1968. Plant communities: a text book on plant synecology. New York: Harper & Row. 300p.Google Scholar
  7. de Laubenfels, D.J. 1970. A geography of plants and animals. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown. 133p.Google Scholar
  8. Dix, R.L.; Smeins, F.E. 1967. The prairie, meadow, and marsh vegetation of Nelson County, North Dakota. Canadian Journal of Botany. 45: 21–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dodd, M.B.; Lauenroth, W.K.; Burke, I.C.; Chapman, P.L. 2002. Associations between vegetation patterns and soil texture in the shortgrass steppe. Plant Ecology. 158: 127–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dolan, B.J.; Parker, G.R. 2005. Ecosystem classification in a flat, highly fragmented region of Indiana, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 219: 109–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Geiger, R. 1965. The climate near the ground. (trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 611p.Google Scholar
  12. Gregg, R.E. 1964. Distribution of the ant genus Formica in the mountains of Colorado. In: H.G. Rodeck (ed.). Natural history of the Boulder area. Leaflet, University of Colorado Museum 13: 59–69.Google Scholar
  13. Hills, A. 1952. The classification and evaluation of site for forestry. Res. Rep. 24. Toronto: Ontario Department of Lands and Forest. 41p.Google Scholar
  14. Hills, G.A. 1976. An integrated interactive holistic approach to ecosystem classification. In: J. Thie and G. Ironside (eds.). Ecological (biophysical) land classification in Canada. Ecological Land Classification Series No. 1. Ottawa: Environment Canada. pp. 73–97.Google Scholar
  15. Hunt, C.B. 1974. Natural regions of the United States and Canada. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman. 725p.Google Scholar
  16. Isachenko, A.G. 1973. Principles of landscape science and physical-geographic regionalization (trans. from Russian by R.J. Zatorski, edited by J.S. Massey). Carlton, Victoria, Australia: Melbourne University Press. 311p.Google Scholar
  17. Klopatek, J.M.; Olson, R.J.; Emerson, C.J.; Joness, J.L. 1979. Land-use conflicts with natural vegetation in the United States. Environmental Sciences Division Publ. No. 1333. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 19p.Google Scholar
  18. Loveland, T.R.; Merchant, J.W.; Ohlen, D.O.; Brown, J.F. 1991. Development of a land-cover characteristics database for the conterminous US. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing. 57: 1453–1463.Google Scholar
  19. Major, J. 1951. A functional, factorial approach to plant ecology. Ecology. 32: 392–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marschner, F.J. 1950. Major land uses in the United States. Washington, DC: USDA Bureau of Agricultural Economics. 1:5,000,000; colored.Google Scholar
  21. Milanova, E.V.; Kushlin, A.V. (eds.). 1993. World map of present-day landscapes: an explanatory note. Moscow: Moscow State University. 33p. with separate map at 1:15,000,000.Google Scholar
  22. Mitchell, C.W. 1973. Terrain evaluation. London: Longman. 221p.Google Scholar
  23. Noss, R.G.; LaRoe, E.T.; Scott, J.M. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United States: a preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. Biological Rep. 28. Washington, DC: National Biological Service. 58p.Google Scholar
  24. Odum, E.P. 1971. Fundamentals of ecology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders. 574p.Google Scholar
  25. Peet, R.K. 1981. Forest vegetation of the Colorado Front Range. Vegetatio. 45: 3–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pfister, R.D.; Arno, S.F. 1980. Classifying forest habitat types based on potential climax vegetation. Forest Science. 26: 52–70.Google Scholar
  27. Powell, D.S.; Faulkner, J.L.; Darr, D.R.; Zhu, Z.; MacCleery, D.W. 1993. Forest resources of the United States, 1992. General Tech. Rep. RM-234. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 132p. with separate map at 1:7,500,000.Google Scholar
  28. Sellers, W.D. 1965. Physical climatology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 272p.Google Scholar
  29. Smith, R.L. 1977. Elements of ecology and field biology. New York: Harper & Row. 497p.Google Scholar
  30. Strahler, A.H.; Strahler, A.N. 1996. Introducing physical geography, environmental update. New York: John Wiley. 565p.Google Scholar
  31. Swanson, F.J.; Kratz, T.K.; Caine, N.; Woodmansee, R.G. 1988. Landform effects on ecosystem patterns and processes. Bioscience. 38: 92–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thornthwaite, C.W. 1954. Topoclimatology. In: Proceedings of the Toronto meteorological conference, September 9–15, 1953. Toronto: Royal Meteorological Society. pp. 227–232.Google Scholar
  33. Troll, C. 1968. The Cordilleras of the tropical Americas, aspects of climatic, phytogeographical and agrarian ecology. In: C. Troll (ed.). Geo-ecology of the mountainous regions of the tropical Americas. Bonn, Ferd. Dümmlers Verlag. pp. 15–56.Google Scholar
  34. USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1975. Soil taxonomy: a basic system for making and interpreting soil surveys. Agric. Handbook 436. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 754p.Google Scholar
  35. Walker, D.A. 2000. Hierarchical subdivision of Arctic tundra based on vegetation response to climate, parent material and topography. Global Change Biology. 6(1): 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wiens, J.A.; Crawford, C.S.; Gosz, J.R. 1985. Boundary dynamics: a conceptual framework for studying landscape ecosystems. Oikos. 45: 421–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Woodward, J. 2000 Waterstained landscapes: seeing and shaping regionally distinctive places. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. 221p.Google Scholar
  38. Yoshino, M.M. 1975. Climate in a small area: an introduction to local meteorology. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. 549p.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rocky Mountain Research StationUSDA Forest ServiceFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations