Bob, Off the top of my bead, I would suggest the following for a site definition. A single patch of old-growth forest can be considered a site with its boundaries defined as the boundary between old growth and younger forests. Multiple patches of old-growth forests that are connected by an unbroken contiguous patch of younger forests can be considered as a single site, with each individual patch considered a sub-site. Otherwise a site should be considered to be all of the forest young and old in a contiguous patch. Contiguous patches are those not separated or interrupted by man-made or natural openings or breaks. Dirt or gravel roads and secondary roads should not be considered as a break in a contiguous patch, while broader or divided highways can be considered as breaks. Sub-sites may be defined by topographic, physiographic, or other distinguishable boundaries within the context of a larger site. The definition of a site should not bee simply arbitrary, but needs to be somewhat pragmatic as well in its application.
Bob, you have suggested in the past that the definition of a site be left to the individual describing it. We have brought up this subject before: http://www.nativetreesociety.org/measure/site_definition.htm At that time, Lee indicated the following hierarchical organization he used for studies from small to large spatial scale: Tree Neighborhood, a grove of adjacent trees within a stand. Stand, an area of one forest type with fairly uniform soils and disturbance history within a site. Site, a cluster of similar stands (i.e. pine stands on moraines, lowland stands along a river, dwarf forests along a ridgetop). Study area, a cluster of sites that may be very heterogeneous and have several forest types, usually defined by political boundaries (i.e. Great Smoky Mountains, MTSF, Porcupine Mountains). Region, a large are defined by political or biogeographical boundaries (i.e. the Southern Appalachians, New England, deciduous forest biome). I don't think that my suggestions above are inconsistent with Lee's organizational structure, although I tried to suggest some more specific or pragmatic boundary definitions. I also would add a category of sub-site between the Stand and Site categories simply for data organization purposes. Ed Frank Join me in the Eastern Native Tree Society at http://www.nativetreesociety.org and in the Primal Forests - Ancient Trees Community at: http://primalforests.ning.com/ The challenge is to decide on what represents a separate site. Maybe we can think through a site definition criteria. As an example of what I find myself up against, fairly large properties like Mt Tom State Reservation, MTSF, MSF, etc. have clusters (sites?) of white pine that are sufficiently separated from one another to warrant separate treatment especially if thinking at the stand level. MTSF has at least 4 distinct pine areas and one could argue for more. However, it is convenient to think of MTSF as a single site. I constantly waffle on places like Mohawk. I'm sure Dale has the same concerns with Cook Forest State Park. How should we define a site? Bob --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org You are subscribed to the Google Groups "ENTSTrees" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
